Hate, actually

Mark

Great article! Sums up the debacle nicely.

Ralph Pattison

Hear, hear. Me too! I had to read Delingpole before It all fell into place.
I thought it was a satire, then I realised that it cost a lot of money and the un- believers do not have that kind of money.
Why do people say the Greenies are Fascist? (whatever that means.) Surely they are Communists of the Stalinist type? Well, just Communists, really.

Alex

Please take a moment to visit 10:10 and let them know what you think of this video (along with their nonchalant apology to the entire climate change movement).

http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry

ferdi

Amen

maddy1

If Mr. Polar Bear's views, as given to our children, are relevant concerning climate change, why are not Mr. Sumatran Tiger's views about third world over population, taken into account.

David Kennedy

Richard Curtis is a double agent ;-)

Robert W. (Vancouver)

Following in the tradition of those Hitler parody videos, here's a new take on the 10:10 video that one could appropriately call "Eco-Zealots Meet Radical Islam": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IrtItfWn1E

elixelx

Ah! Satire!
So close to Truth that you actually have to WARN the reader it's a joke, or they'll laugh at every stupid thing you say and do, and believe it to be the Truth!
Jon Stewart, please take note! Yours is NOT wit, merely a red-hot poker in the eye of your victim, and your audience!
And Have I Got News For You, too!
3 famous examples of Satire gone wrong:
1) Am I my brother's keeper--said by killer while standing over still warm dead body of brother!
2) How goodly are thy tents O Israel--said by prophet while receiving an envelope stuffed with cash in order to curse Israel!
3) He who steals my purse steals trash; but he who steals my good name steals what profits him not and leaves me the poorer..said by the most hypocritical, pernicious, jealous villain created by Shakespeare..
Sarcasm, they say, is the lowest form of wit. Satire, I say, is the modern bog standard.

J Robinson

The film made me laugh, but then the whole campaign is laughable. In particular, the use of the media industry to promote a low carbon message is hilarious. The media must consume millions of watts of electricity per year, most of it ending up on the cutting room floor.
Ingenuous?
Don't make me laugh.

Ken Bevakasha

From the 'Vicar of Dibley' to this. Talk about scratch a hippy and find a fascist.

el keigh

Two points:

1 I consider myself an environmentalist, but I was absolutely appalled by the advert - it was offensive, but above all, it just wasn't funny (much like the rest of Curtis‘ output)

2 Dr Tim Ball is not a climatologist - he parades himself as one, but he is a geographer - google scholar shows that of all his peer reviewed work, only 1 is connected to climate, and even that is a very tenuous article.

Ian E

Let's face it, blowing up your enemies is a pretty effective way to win the argument - provided you get enough of them! Even better though - and surely Curtis missed a trick here - would be to take a leaf out of the past: the Spanish Inquisition approach! Blowing up is much too quick to REALLY frighten the opposition, so how about red-hot pincers, the rack and the thumb-screw!

Greg

Hardly surprising. Green is the new Red, and the Reds have never had a problem offing a million or two in pursuit of questionable ideology.

John Holland

Not having seen the film, I am not going to defend it, particularly as I have no faith in the intellegence of Richard |Curtis, but if you think the AGW debate has been dealt a killer blow by the crass attempts at irony by the maker of The Vicar Of Dibley, that's your perogative. Didn't Reagan once make a joke about nuking Russia?

Ralph Pattison's claim that the "the unbelievers" have no funds is just daft. Be serious for a moment. The very well- funded tea party movement won't even back a Republican candidate unless he/she proclaims their "disbelief".

Andre

Here's the original if you want to see it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLw6py869c

Omega

The Grenns, just like other socialists and Marxists are motivated by hate. For example here is a short clip of the charmless Caroline Lucas talking about the tories. Note in particular the flash of hatred in her eyes at 0.35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86OvypmJs5o

EC

Brilliant Melanie!

WOW! What a PR disaster! It's great that they have shown themselves in their true colours.

I have been told, in all seriousness, by one of these nasty AGW zealots, that any form of scepticism was as bad if not worse that holocaust denial!

Andre,

Thank you very much for posting the link to the original film which will be widely distributed along with the link to Melanie's article.

Veracity

I was laways a sceptic in regard to climate change but if I were not I would certainly be one after this film. So suicide bombing and bits of blood and gore are a subject for joking now . May God have mercy

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Elixelx:

3 famous examples of Satire gone wrong:

He who steals my purse steals trash; but he who steals my good name steals what profits him not and leaves me the poorer..said by the most hypocritical, pernicious, jealous villain created by Shakespeare..

A lot of people who quote that line don't remember who said it.

1) Am I my brother's keeper--said by killer while standing over still warm dead body of brother!

Most people who quote that line DO remember who said it-and when.

I believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous anti-Semitic document dreamed up by the Tsarist police, was based on a SATIRE about how the CATHOLICS were planning to take over the world.

killkidsitsfunny

10:10 website comments taken down and no longer allowed, COWARDS

SO funny!

the flippant 'apology' makes things MUCH worse and truly shows the mindset, uncaring, self deluding, etc.
And I bet they have several houses, big cars, fly a lot. Hypocrits

Rachel Miller

Just thought I'd say, I had exactly the same reaction when I first saw it - I genuinely thought it was an anti-green activism spoof. Honestly, I think this will prove to be a pretty spectacular own goal for 10:10 et. al..

DougS

I'm interested to know; are there any Hollywood stars, film/theatre producers/directors - or luvvies at any level, that do not swallow the AGW alarmism scam wholesale?

Most of the ones that do are super-hypocrites because they certainly don't 'walk the walk'.

John.

After the recent two-part programme on radio 4, purporting to be a criticism of the IPCC and of global warming theory in general, I wrote to the presenter pointing out that no criticism of the theory had even been mentioned and that slightly inconvenient truths such as the facts that millions of years ago, when there was 15 times the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. the world was an ice ball, that the percentage of CO2 in the air always increases AFTER an increase in temperature, so cannot be a cause, that Britain was far warmer than it is now in Roman and mediaeval times, when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere, that the percentage of CO2 contributed to the total in the atmosphere by humans was only 3% of the already vanishly small amount present, that the cost of trying to influence what is undoubtedly caused by changes in the ratio between the amounts of magnetic radiation emitted by the sun and cosmic radiation reaching us from outside the solar system, would be rather more than it would cost to educate, feed and heal all those at present ignored in these respects - I was ignored. No reply from him has been received to date. So much for a discussion, and a radical opening of the discussion.

Scott

Bingo! Well argued and exactly what should be the arguement going forward.

John Holland

John.- I'd like to know how you are certain of the "undoubted" cause of climate change, ie the ratio between cosmic and magnetic radiation, not to mention the cut 'n past internet filler in the rest of your Nobel Prize worthy tour de force.

The reason you are not listened to on these issues is probably because, judging from your post, you don't know a lot about the subject- even though you are absolutely certain of your claims. (Why? How?)

I can be "absolutely certain" that Henry IV were conjoined twins who wore ladies underwear, but historians might not take me as seriously as I think they should. I could also take that as proof of a conspiracy. It's more likely to be because I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry, but these subjects are just elitist in that way.

Nick

John - 'cosmic' and 'magnetic' radiation? There are no such things.

Perhaps you mean electromagnetic radiation? Or perhaps you mean something else entirely. I'm confused!

(I'm curious to know what the electromagnetic photon flux influencing the Earth from non-Solar System sources is too. Is Alpha Centauri directly responsible for climate change?)

SusanHill

Melanie, I was going to blog about this but I couldn`t calm down enough to be as reasonable as you have been. Can you imagine this - 'I am the Pope. You must all believe that if you do not follow what my church tells you, you will go to hell. Now will you believe me ? ' Two or three children in the class do not. Boom.
'These people are Jews. I say they are a danger to the human race and should be exterminated. Do you all agree ? '.. yes, you get the idea. This was a hate crime and taking down the offensive film does not make it any less so. The vileness of it defies belief. The idea that presumably sane, educated, civilized people in the Western world today could actually make a propaganda film in which children who do not agree with a doctrine are BLOWN UP, and everybody laughs and thinks it is funny and edgy - makes me weep. And also full of righteous anger. No matter that the jury is still out on the whole subject of climate change and whether anything man does has any bearing on it. Because make no mistake, it is still out. The climate has always changed. Do these people not know that ? It has been a lot hotter and a lot colder on planet earth and this long before the internal combustion engine was dreamed of. But that is beside the point. Even if it were proven to the last degree, to make such a film is despicable and punishable as a hate crime.The response of the film-makers was childish and ignorant, it showed no understanding of what they had done, made no apology and showed not the slightest trace of remorse. It amounted to 'Whoops ! Well, you live and learn.'
Do you ? And I daresay if asked they would say that what they have learned is that some people are touchy and can't take a joke. God knows what warped minds the 9/11 bombers had when they blew up several hundred people, and God knows what kind of religion they practise - but the one and only thing I can say for them as against for these eco-haters, is that I am damn sure none of them found what they were doing FUNNY.
Shame on them. I wish they had kept the film up there. I was seriously thinking of asking for them to be prosecuted for a hate crime. But no film, no evidence.

C.Gee

John:

You have been snobbed. Blown away. But no pressure. John Holland has a sense of humour, no?

Your questions are avoided, but your use of the word "undoubtedly" on one aspect of atmosphere is picked up as sneer-worthy. That "undoubtedly" puts you among the great unwashed, ignorant, clottish, obstructive underclass, a laity, whose notions of causality blinds it to the threat of hockey-sticks. You must leave the arcana of atmospherics to the elite priesthood - the climatologists, special even among scientists. These are the authorities invested with the power of prediction.

Once the priests have predicted a catastrophe, their agents only have to be absolutely convinced of that catastrophe (OK, 95% convinced) - not "absolutely certain" it will occur at all - to get a Nobel Prize. Gore, Pachauri, IPCC panel - these are the prizewinning elite. Your sad little jabberings gleaned from who-knows-where will never achieve Nobel recognition. Sorry, but they should be blown up. Ha-ha. Just joking. (See the light-hearted, funny allusion to King Henry being a duality!)

John Holland

Nick- don't be nasty. Just because John's science is different, doesn't mean it's not just as valid, in its own way.

We all have a right to "know" about everything; science need be no more complex than our prejudices. I'm sure HE knows what he means.

Paul T Horgan

I have complained to the police that this video is a hate crime. Let's see how they get on.

Also one of the sponsors of 10:10 had this to say to me:

Hello

Thank you for your email. I totally understand your reaction to this video, which was very similar to my own.

Kyocera Mita UK has supported the 10:10 campaign because we share its ambition to reduce carbon emissions. However, we don't support the "No Pressure" video and are dismayed by the suggestion that we might have been knowing partners in its production; in fact, we had no knowledge of its content until it appeared online. We consider that 10:10 made a serious error of judgement in its choice of creative approach, which is totally at odds with the inclusive and positive attitude that has been the hallmark of its other activities. We understand that 10:10 has acknowledged its mistake, withdrawn the video and issued an apology.

I assure you that we are taking this issue extremely seriously. A formal statement will be issued in due course.

Kind regards

Tracey

Tracey Rawling Church
Director of Brand and Reputation

KYOCERA MITA (UK) Limited

================================
That statement is still a work in progress

Charles

Don't worry MP. Over at CiF, the film is being crucified too, particularly by those who do think that global warming is worth taking seriously (as I do).

On this, you're spot on: the film's offensive, crass and more or less guaranteed not to win anyone over.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#comment-fold

AY

AGW is a NOT an innocent hoax.
It is there for purpose.

Here we sit, three of us together, - I, you, and your candy. I suddenly say - look here, a bird is flying. You turn to that side, then turn back, and oops - there is no candy anymore. You can ask now what the F and where's my candy, but I will just say, how do you spell it c-a-n-y-d-y?

AGW is that bird, and Britain is this candy. While brainwashed simpletons are busy struggling CO2 winds in the sky, the country is stolen under their noses.

That bloody ad - is a predictable result of ongoing monkeyzation of population. Next movie will be about serving AGW sceptics with gravy and parsley for the winners of 10:10 activists' competition. It will be loud success.

el keigh

C.Gee,

Your use of the 95% statement shows that you are just as clueless as John (who presents a pile of statements refuted endlessly on other websites - I am not going to bother listing the errors he made because as is always the case, it takes far longer to refute an idiotic claim than it is to make the idiotic claim in the first place).

When statisticians use the term 95%, they are not referring to how sure they are that a certain trend exists, they are referring to how certain it is that the trend is distinguishable from background variations.

Richard

I've just watched this film for the first time, and, yes, it's a horrible piece of work, and quite bizarre. What were they thinking? It can only bring environmentalism into disrepute. Perhaps Richard Curtis really is a double agent.

Melanie and others here have jumped on it eagerly of course, and the temptation must have been irresistible. But the larger inference they draw is spectacularly unfair. The most bizarre thing about the film (apart, perhaps, from the inclusion of those Spurs players) is its complete incongruity with the movement one must assume it is trying to assist. Environmentalism is one of the most peaceful of all political movements. SusanHill attempts to make some sort of comparison with the 9/11 atrocities. When have carbon footprint campaigners bombed or murdered anybody?

JohnBUK

It's really no different to Gordon Brown and David Milliband telling us that all non-believers in AGW are flat-earthers. ie Let's demonise those with an opposing view to our own and then destroy them. A policy the Jews are very well aware of.

John Snell

The film sounds utterly crass. In fact it reminded me of Matthew Parris' hilarious Times article a couple of years ago asserting that 'smug' cyclists 'deserve to be decapitatated' with wire strung across the road. Rightwing commentators were far more relaxed about that one, as I recall.

gareth

Melanie - have you seen Agora with (the beautiful) Rachel Weisz ......usual hollywood treatment of a true history - good and bad.

However, it reminded me of your blogs which challenge us to see what is in front of our eyes.

We love you Melanie

Liz Muir

This is proof that Tim Ball is a Climatologist.

http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/record=b1527695~S24

Peter

I found your article excellent in describing some of my feelings (so that means the emotive bit) and thoughts (where I believe my common sense is trying to break through).
Like Hermann Hesse I am a non-party member, I belong (and am therefore not owned) by any organisation, group, syndicate or otherwise. But I do believe in humankind a) doing what it can to rapidly reduce its demands upon the resources of Nature and Her Planet and b) better understanding the latter.
If anyone needs "blowing up" it is these myriads of, either commercial or socio-politico, collectives that only eventually lead us to yet another new 'hell'!

John Holland

AY- amazing piece of intellectual discouse. It's all there; the candy (c-a-n-a-d-y), the bird, at all somehow fits into place now.
This pointless debate can all, at last, be called off now. The argument, the scientific research, the whole charade has been exposed and solved.

Can you please turn your thoughts to other connundrums; dark matter; is string theory an unprovable, and therefore unherantly unscientific, hypothesis?

david elder

Do we get to blow up the Pope? That will stop all child abuse. Can I explode Michael Moore? He's so much richer than me. Can I blow up 'our' ABC and its members of the unthreatened species Relicus Sixtiesii? Britney, LiLo, who needs their carbon footprint? Poof, bang - wizard old chap. The Strolling Bones should be euthanised - bang! It's done! And for a blissful moment there Sir Mick was really singing again. Detonate dole bludgers, good riddance. And it's been certified carbon-neutral by 10:10. Who else can I detonate? I never did like the Greens ...

Skeptic

>>>>>>I believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous anti-Semitic document dreamed up by the Tsarist police, was based on a SATIRE about how the CATHOLICS were planning to take over the world.

Not exactly. It was a satire against Napoleon III, who the author, Maurice Joly, blamed for being a would-be dictator. It is Napoleon III (disguised as "Machiavelli" in the satire) who would be employing propaganda and lies to take over France, not the Catholics. The Jews aren't even mentioned.

Joly himself was a "bad boy" writer who wrote many biting satires, but was clearly a humanist and a liberal (in the sense of liking freedom and opposing tyranny).

One wonders what Joly, who died in 1878, would have said had he known his satire "A Conversation in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" were used as the basis of the most horrific literary fraud in history.

John.

Nick, John Holland, Keigh: As any other non-specialist in this field, I rely on reading to inform myself. How else would you expect me find out the facts? Nigel Calder in "The Chilling Stars2 discusses the ratio between radiation from the sun and that from outside the solar system as being the great driver of climate change. I have found the other various facts from reading Lord Lawson's "An Appeal to Reason", Christopher Booker's "Scared to Death" Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" and Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Ednvironmentalist" and "Cool It". It would be otiose to summarise all the references to specialist scientific papers which are quoted and referred to in thes books. This is whence my opinions come. If you can suggest other reputable sources then do so. I am deeply sceptical of members of the IPCC some of whom have even less expertise than I do, others of whom seem to have sold out and yet more who have presented fraudulent results to try to bolster their case. I really don't want to have go to endless trouble quoting chapter and verse for all this - you must be well aware of whom and of whose work I am talking.

John Holland

John BUK- I don't think your analogy goes far enough. Comparing the scientists promoting the AGW theory to Nazis, and the sceptics to Jews being exterminated in the Holocaust, is surely letting the scientists off lightly.After all, the Nazis didn't even HAVE tv adverts.

Nevertheless, it's good to see someone brave enough to put the debate into its proper perspective, and to so sensitively utilise the memory of the six million Jewish dead.

When those on this site accuse the pro-AGW camp of grotesque and cruel misuse of irony, I think sane voices like yours can only throw into sharp relief the contrast between the methods of the two sides involed.

Raymond in DC

I don't know if folks outside the US saw it, but Audi had an ad during last year's Superbowl portraying "green police" arresting people for using old fashioned light bulbs, for not properly separating their trash, etc. Then it shows an eco-roadblock which waves through the Audi TDI because it's so obviously "green". And off to the side? The eco-cops ticket a *policeman* over his styrofoam coffee cup.

One's first reaction might be, "What were they thinking?" But we see where this has lead. My first reaction upon seeing the "No pressure" piece was "These people are SICK!"

alan stoddart

10:10? Surely that's only half the 20:20 needed for clear vision....perhaps they're only half witted as well as half blind to the truth.

SusanHill

When have carbon footprint campaigners bombed or murdered anybody?
Give them time. Anyone prepared to show children being blown up in a film, and defend their action by saying it was meant to be FUNNY, is capable of going one step further. Remember, a lot of the Germans who put Jews into gas chambers started by being quite reasonable people with nice families. One small step, a bit of encouragement from your fellow-believers and film turns into reality.
The fact that they could even THINK these things makes them suspect. But the worst thing is that the eco-fascists with worrying global agendas have taken a lot of well-meaning, thoughtful people along with them. Yesterday I was asked to go and speak in an Anglican church. Well, I am an Anglican.. but I like to find out a bit about who is inviting me so I looked up the church's website.
I found no word about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, forgiving our enemies, working for peace,protecting small children, or anything else Jesus bade us do. I found a lot about wicked oil companies, saving polar bears and pandas and the wickedness of accepting plastic carrier bags though.
Needless to say, I asked the vicar a few hard questions before declining his invitation.

Nick

John. Radiative energy flux drops monotonically as the square of distance.

Radiative flux due to the Sun is in the order of 1.4 kW/m^2 in the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere. Radiative flux due extra Solar sources (i.e. other stars) is in the order of 1.5 fW/m^2, i.e. 21 orders of magnitude less. The 'Chilling Stars' hypothesis is laughably, utterly wrong. The stars are simply too far away (this shouldn't come as a surprise to you, especially when you consider that the nearest extra-Solar star is 40 trillion km distant). The inverse square law always wins.

That's not to say that the Sun has no influence on the Earth's climate, of course. Only a fool would argue that it doesn't. But then again, only a fool would argue that anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic climate change is mutually exclusive.

(And I'm not a climatologist. But I am an infra-red spectroscopist, and understand the concepts of radiative heat transfer)

John Holland

Susan Hill- as an Anglican Christian, your use of language like "eco-fascist" in this situation seems a bit well, tabloid.

Extrapolating from a stupid advertisement to the holocaust is, as I suggested earlier, not so much dim, as offensive to the memories of the victims.

And as you are an Anglican Christian, I could, if I was being equally hysterical, suggest you share the murderous intent of the Protestant Ulster terrorists of the 70's; that would be no more ridiculous.

I don't know if you're of the persuasion that basks in the belief that I, as an unbeliever, will burn for eternity in the fires of Hell (Oh the humanity), but even if not, it's only, as you put it, the next "step".

Even if, in your rational wisdom, you have decided all talk of AGW is bunk, surely you could accept that some of those, however misguided, who see what they are doing as trying to protect the weak and poor against a potentially famine-inducing and unstable climate, are not NECESSARILY Nazis. Though obviously, if Jesus were with us today, He wouldn't be wasting His time with all that 'considering the lillies' nonsense, He'd be defending the oil lobby.

Nick- I hate to say this, but you might just be wasting your time. I have a horrible feeling the likes of John don't actually CARE about understanding the science. Sorry.

C.Gee

el keigh:

Who here was talking about statisticians? Or trends?
(Though actual climate science should and does.)

C.Gee

Nick:

You might wish to refresh your memory as to what the hypothesis of "The Chilling Stars" actually is, before you laugh at it.

Nick

C Gee, can you provide me with a reference for the "Chilling Stars" hypothesis from a peer-reviewed source so I can refresh my memory?

Richard

SusanHill says:

When have carbon footprint campaigners bombed or murdered anybody? Give them time.

They've had time. Global warming has been a serious public concern for about twenty years. In that time the protest movement campaigning for reduction in carbon emissions has been consistently peaceful.

Olaf

Has anyone reported 10:10 / Curtis to the police for inciting religious hatred?

Global warming, sorry I mean climate change (temperatures relating to predicted climatic disasters may go down as well as up)is a new religion isn't it?

Miranda Rose Smith

Skeptic
October 5th, 2010 12:15pm
>>>>>>I believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous anti-Semitic document dreamed up by the Tsarist police, was based on a SATIRE about how the CATHOLICS were planning to take over the world.

Not exactly. It was a satire against Napoleon III, who the author, Maurice Joly, blamed for being a would-be dictator. It is Napoleon III (disguised as "Machiavelli" in the satire) who would be employing propaganda and lies to take over France, not the Catholics. The Jews aren't even mentioned.

Thanks.

Mordant

It's funny 'cos in real life people don't blow up other people if they don't agree with them.

I think it would have been funnier if they'd shown some radicalised agency blowing people up for diagreeing with them on, ...say a tube train.

Fanatics are unpleasant people whatever their agenda.

Ash

How much "deadly" CO2 emission would be avoided if all AGW supporters stopped gassing off for just 5 minutes?

John Holland

Olaf- "global warming is a new religeon isn't it?"

Well, no, not according to any definition of religeon I've come across.

John.

Nick, John Holland: May I suggest, again that you do some of the homework yourselves and actually look up the scientific papers to which the books I mention refer, copiously? Calling people stupid and the like doesn't help further intelligent discussion very much.

John.

Nick, John Holland: May I suggest, again that you do some of the homework yourselves and actually look up the scientific papers to which the books I mention refer, copiously? Calling people stupid and the like doesn't help further intelligent discussion very much.

John.

Nick: So you deny the existence and action of cosmic raiation upon the seas?
John Holland: If I didn't care about the Earth I wouldn't take the trouble to inform myself about supposed threats to it. Climate change is inevitable, has always occured and, as it is caused by factors beyond human control, cannot be controlled by us. The principle threat to the environment and future human happiness is quite simply an ever increasing number of human beings crowding out every other living thing and using up every available source of food with no thought for the morrow - fish stocks, arable land, fresh water etc., etc., etc.

james

"Not exactly. It was a satire against Napoleon III, who the author, Maurice Joly, blamed for being a would-be dictator. It is Napoleon III (disguised as "Machiavelli" in the satire) who would be employing propaganda and lies to take over France, not the Catholics. The Jews aren't even mentioned."

Slightly wrong, the first version of the Protocols was targeted against the Jesuits in France, only later was it targeted against Napoleon III

Dixon

It is a consistently and widely attested axiom that people who "care" demonstratively about "Humanity", "the planet" etc invariably do not give a damn about real people who they encounter or who they share their lives with.

A superb book about this is Paul Johnsons "Intellectuals". He catalogues a large number of choice examples. For instance, did you know that Karl Marx had a lifelong domestic slave? Her name was Helen Demuth, known as "Lenchen". She was taken into servitude in the household of Marx's future wife at age eight. When Karl and Mrs Marx moved to London his mother-in-law GAVE the girl then 22, to him and she continued to be his domestic slave, working without pay or privilege until her death! During that time, Marx also used her in effect as a sex slave: she bore his illegitimate son, Henry Frederick Demuth, who he never acknowledged. Marx was well aware of the iniquitous and exploitative nature of his usery of "Lenchen", which he took great pains to keep secret from his revolutionary cronies such as Engels (Johnson, p79-80). This was a man who wanted to free the world!

Many examples can now be found not among intellectuals but celebrities. Here (at You tube) is a little vignette from behind the scenes, literally (in the dressing room) of one such "celebrity", the "comedian" Rob Newman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15l6mKhzg3E

Nick

John, I do not understand what you mean by 'cosmic' radiation. Please define it for me.

Do I agree that 'Solar' radiation affects the temperature of the oceans? Of course. Do you agree that the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its absorption of infra-red photons affects its temperature?

Miranda Rose Smith

Slightly wrong, the first version of the Protocols was targeted against the Jesuits in France, only later was it targeted against Napoleon III

Dear James: Thanks.

C.Gee

Nick
October 6th, 2010 8:17am

Why don't you read the book?

Ian Hills

John Holland's demonising of the largely peaceful Ulster protestants (October 5) is reflected in the viciousness of environmental activists. The victim is to blame, the IRA and the greens are the holy innocents. Similarly the Israelis are to blame when the poor Palestinians fire rockets at them. Or should that read "the Jews deserve everything they get"? Fascist attitudes are often thinly disguised as being progressive instead. Only the apparent causes change.

Dixon

"
Nick
October 6th, 2010 4:49pm

John, I do not understand what you mean by 'cosmic' radiation. Please define it for me.

Do I agree that 'Solar' radiation affects the temperature of the oceans? Of course. Do you agree that the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its absorption of infra-red photons affects its temperature?"

I think Nicks question is condescending to the point of implying there is no such thing as "cosmic" radiation. No, its not solar heating, Nick, maybe you are'nt as knowledgeable as you think.

I have long read a bit of astronomy so was well aware that cosmic radiation is not just something waffled about by Spectator readers who mean solar heating. Indeed, astronauts have often experienced stimulation of the visual cortex by cosmic radiation resulting in perceived flashes as of light.

However, I realised my knowledge of it was vague, so I Googled it. You should try it Nick. Instead of implying that anything you dont already know is nonsense. You would have found this in seconds:

"Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. About 89% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons, with nearly 10% being helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements; electrons (beta particles) constitute about 1% of galactic cosmic rays.[1] The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. However, when they were first discovered, cosmic rays were thought to be rays. When their particle nature needs to be emphasized, "cosmic ray particle" is written."

Richard

Dixon,

Your comments are a rather harsh attack on Melanie, who cares passionately and demonstratively about many abstractions and generalised entities, such as 'the family', 'Judaeo-Christian values' and (see above) 'the human condition'. I disagree with her on many things, and agree on some, but I know of no evidence that she does not give a damn about the real people she encounters.

Nick

Dixon, I know very well what cosmic 'rays' consist of, but thank you for your reply in any case.

It should also be abundantly apparent to you that any gamma radiation, alpha particles, or beta particles reaching the Earth from extra-Solar sources will be massively attenuated and of negligible energy. They are of no consequence to our climate.

John Moss

The whole "grenn" movement is predicated on returning to pre-industrial revolution levels of food production, using "organic" methods and only eating "local" food.

That's fine, if you are happy to return to pre-industrial revolution levels of population and nutritional health.

So it is entirley consistent with this that the green campaign suggests people have to die. They do, probably 2 billion would have to be quietly eased out of existence or - more likely - starved to death, should we ever adopt their bonkers policies. Most would be poor africans and asians, most women and children.

Then perhaps we can all live a "Logan's Run" type of existence. Fed, housed, schooled, entertained and maintained by a beneficient state.

Then murdered the day you turn thirty!

Dixon

Nick wrote:

October 6th, 2010 4:49pm

"John, I do not understand what you mean by 'cosmic' radiation. Please define it for me. "

Which I then suggested was a condescending and disingenuous remark.

Now Nick writes:
"
Dixon, I know very well what cosmic 'rays' consist of, but thank you for your reply in any case."

Absolutely hilarious! So it seems I was right. And he exhibits Simpson-like ineptitude in demonstrating it. Doh!

He says "I do not understand what you mean by 'cosmic' radiation."

Then in his next comment writes: "I know very well what cosmic 'rays' consist of, "

No, you really wouldnt dare make it up, it would appear too daft. Doh! Absolutely hilarious!

John

Nick: I do not propose to do all your home work for you. You obviously do know what cosmic rays are, so why pretend not to? Read the books of which I've given you the titles and also the specialist scientific papers to which all the texts refer, then you may perhaps begin to understand what I and others are talking about.

Jill

hey, I'm all for reducing the number of people who are threatening others by their existence. Let's start with these amoral fatheads who think killing in the name of the Green Faith is OK. Then the idiots fininacing them. Then the morons who acted in these films (although they were probanly broke, so they might just need a microloan to survive). Then all the Climate yowlers promulgating false figures and information. Then all the ones telling everyone to kill themselves...like Australia's Clive Hamilton and Tim Flannery, to name but two.

Let the culling begin.

John Holland

Ian Hills- If you read what I said, rather than taking any excuse to plough off int o your favoured 'victim' furrough, you'd have realised that I was comparing the unreasonableness of someone calling all Greens fascist with grouping all Protestants with the Prody terrorists, who, whether you find it convenient or not, were active in the 1970's.

That really shouldn't be such a difficult thing to understand. Try thinking before spinning off into full reactionary mode.

Dixon- I have an image of you as being around twelve years old; am I wrong? "doh!" "ha ha" ner ner ne ner ner....when you finish jumping around pulling faces and trading sophistries, maybe you could deal with the actual point, i.e. that the effect of extra- solar radiation is neglegable.

John.

John Holland: Read Ian Plimer "Heaven and Earth" and Ridley's "The Chilling Stars" and the scientific papers to which the authors refer before speaking so confidently of the negligeable effect of the sun on our climate. I wonder whether correct spelling is any indication of proficiency in other areas?

John Holland

John- thanks for the spelling tip- very important.
More important, no doubt, than your disinclination to read what was written. Where did I say such a self-evidently absurd thing as the sun has a "negligeable" (sic.) effect on our climate?

Do you really think I, or anyone else, has ever said that?
What I said was "extra-solar radiation, i.e. from BEYOND the sun. I don't really need to read a book by an angry geologist to learn that the sun, the big yellow thing in the sky, has QUITE a large effect on our climate.
The thing that makes me laugh is that "sceptics" on this and other sites often complain that scientists don't dare to take their questions seriously. While, no doubt my spelling mistakes are, as you suggest, a sign of mental deficiency, and yours a sure sign of genius, I think you should try harder before trying to match semi-scientific pegs to your political holes.

John Holland

By the way, Jill- do you ACTUALLY want to cull supporters of the AGW theory?
Because if you really do, then you are (and I'm sorry to be rude), a psychopath. Which makes you no better than the Nazi Greens.

If you DON'T really want to cull thousands of people for their beliefs, I guess you must be using rhetoric and irony in some blunt way. Just like the admittedly moronic Curtis in that advert. THE SAME! Golly! Do you see what you've done? You behaved in exactly the same way as your mortal enemies, but allowed yourself to luxuriate in bilious and sanctimonious moral superiority. Lovely.

C.Gee

John Holland:

Jill understands irony, and uses it well. Nobody who does not have a tin ear could pretend that she is doing the same thing as the makers of "No Pressure". Your unfunny facetiousness does not disguise your failure to discern the difference between irony and self-parody.

The self-parody of the ad turned the screw too far: the moral bearings were lost, the moral message defeated, destroyed by its own ridicule. Its failure was ironic. The ad was not.

Irony is not necessarily humorous, certainly not in the thigh-slapping laffs sense. It can be grim. Jill's irony is grim: it recognizes the deadly earnest message of the ad, and plays against it. She is grimly, but quite obviously, against "culling", where the ad (wonderful production values) was jokingly very much for it.

Jill is morally superior to the creators of the ad, and, not incidentally, is a more subtle English-speaker and writer.

What worries me is that the loss of the art of irony is yet another indication that England has lost its marbles - moral, political, and intellectual.

Christopher Chantrill

Suppose we call environmentalists members of the catholic church of environmentalism, and we call the 10:10 chaps the Holy Office of the Climate Inquisition.

Then what we have on our hands is a return to the good old religious wars that everyone agrees belong to our benighted past.

The problem is, of course, that if you don't believe in God you'll believe in anything.

John.

John Holland: If you don't read the evidence your comments are worthless. I made an error - I meant Calder when I said Ridley. Why I said Ridley I just don't know. Cosmic radiation is diverted by electro-magnetic radiation from the sun - the more there is of one the less there is of the other obviously. Variations in this ratio lead to variations in global temperature and climate. It's pointless my repeating this if you're not prepared to read the evidence.

John Holland

C. Gee- you may think that, bacause you share her views, but you havn't
shown any convincing difference between the two equally dumb uses of irony. You think the difference lies in the fact that Richard Curtis literally wants to slaughter people and Jill does'nt. could equally say, on the available evidence, i.e. two half-witted and obtuse attempts at irony, that Jill "means" it and Curtis doesn't.
I suspect anyone looking at it objectively would conclude they are both in the same boat

John Holland

I think I get the basic rule now- if a nasty greeny makes a sick joke, its proof of murderous intent. And, of course, facetiousness.
If a nice ant-greeny makes a sick joke, its a rather brilliant use of irony.
Sorry for the obvious misunderstanding; easy not to appreciate the subtle, devastating and very unfecetious brilliance of 'culling fatheads'.

John- it wasn't the mix up of names that was odd, it was the basic statement that I thought the sun had no real effect on our climate.

John.

John Holland: I'm glad that you realise that that yellow thing in the sky has an influence on global climate but surprised that it is apparently not realised that it does so by diverting cosmic radiation - the producer of clouds above the seas - away from the Earth when there are sun spots active on the surface of the yellow thing. "negligeable" is an accepted alternative spelling of "negligible" - you could say that the one was applicable to young women who would look attractive scantily clad and the other, to the number of them who wouldn't. Unfortunately I haven't got an acute accent on this computer to help elucidate this.
You have also not addressed the position of Bjorn Lomborg who maintains that, even were the CO2 thesis to be true, (which it clearly isn't), the collosal sums needed to attempt to prevent climate change would do nothing whatsoever to fulfill such a purpose - they would merely delay the onset of climate change by 5 years after the passage of 100. He suggests that the unimaginably large sums involved would be far better spent on eliminating such universal scourges as TB and malaria and also giving education and medical help to all those not being given such things now. In any case the elephant in the room is not climate change, it is over population, and no-one is even prepared to mention that, let alone tackle it.

In the Wilderness in America

Perhaps Virginia Ironside, of smothering suffering infants fame, and Richard Curtis should get together and create a public service ad to help all you euthanasia and green elites out there snuff out your competition.

Charles

John.

Bjorn Lomborg has always thought that anthropogenically forced climate change was happening.

His original position, as stated in "The Skeptical Environmentalist", was that "Global warming, though its size and future projections are unrealistically pessimistic, is almost certainly taking place, but the typical cure of early and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse than the original affliction, and moreover its total impact will not pose a devastating problem for our future." [1]

However, he has recently revised that opinion, and had this to say in an interview with new Scientist.

"Man-made global warming exists. My problem is with the single-minded focus on drastic carbon emission reductions that have been promised in the 18 years since the Earth Summit in Rio, and have gotten virtually nowhere.
...
There is a complete polarisation of the debate on climate change. You either hear that global warming is not happening, or it is the end of the world. We need to look at the smart middle. What's the smartest way to stop emitting CO2?" [2]

So when it comes to famous sceptics, we have Plimer, who argues that manmade climate change doesn't exist; Lindzen, who argues that the effects of CO2 on temperatures are overstated; Lomborg, who argues that AGW exists and needs massive investment in green tech; and MacIntyre, who said in a recent Guardian debate that were he in government, he'd take action on climate change.

The problem with the sceptical position on AGW is that there are several; and they seem to contradict one another.

References
[1] Lomborg, B (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press (Quote from page 4)

[2] "Bjørn Lomborg: Use technology to fight climate change" in New Scientist1 September 2010, Issue 2778. Available here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727786.300-bjørn-lomborg-use-technology-to-fight-climate-change.html

C.Gee

John:

"In any case the elephant in the room is not climate change, it is over population, and no-one is even prepared to mention that, let alone tackle it."

Over-population - where? Or are you talking globally (and through your hat) ? Has anybody ever suggested a population level that is just right? And having done so, suggested how to keep it there?

Using the same powers of reason which led you to discard AGW, you should be able to discard your fears of over-population. Both are rooted in the same totalitarian, puritanical urge to control tricked out in lab coats.

John Holland

John- You're picking bits of information that you like because they match your prior inclinations.
There is nothing remotely proven about any serious effects of cosmic radiation, of whatever sort, any more than anyone remotely attempting an approximation of objectivity could say for certain that the CO2 thesis is not true.
You quote people like Plimer and Nigel Lawson who are declared sceptics (or in the case of Lawson, posess little knowledge of the subject)- clearly that in itself doesn't make them wrong, but on what grounds can you make a decision for certain that they right? Why are sceptics so unsceptical? Yes, I know you could say that of the opposite side, but that's my point; everyone on sites like these talk of certainties, without explaining the basic assumptions behind them, as opposed to throwing around half-understood and arbitrary "facts".

I've only just read C.Gee's very funny earlier lambast against the likes of me "Sneering" (no sceptic ever sneers) about people with little or no knowledge of a subject making absolutely certain statements about it.
This wierd form of "anti-elitism" seems to be a new feature of the Right- its a kind of reactionary relativism, whereby anyone's opinion of anything is valid, as long as it is politically conservative, even, or especially, if its about a very specialist and complex subject.
So if I say, "I'm absolutely certain that quantum physics is a load of rubbish", my half-baked statement should be 'respected'.
If a quantum physicist contradicted it, he would be exposing himself as a member of a nasty elitist priesthood. "Its not fair- why don't we get Nobel prizes?"
Do you apply this peculiar form of political correctness to everything?
Do you do your own medical procedures? Are doctors part of the elite that tries to belittle your Nobel-worthy musings?
Its ironic that so many people politically on the Right these days, particularly in the US but increasingly here too, have found their own use for the limp "My truth is as good as yours" relativism of the dimmer end of the sixties zeitgeist.

Charles

C. Gee

"Over-population - where? Or are you talking globally?"
Probably globally

"Has anybody ever suggested a population level that is just right?"
There is the Optimum Population Trust.

"And having done so, suggested how to keep it there?"
Good question.

The thing with population is that a finite amount of land can't provide sustenance for an infinite number of people; and the more land there is per person, the higher the standard of living for each of them (presumably).

But as you point out, morally, socially and politically the question of population size is hugely difficult. Economic development tends to reduce birth rates anyway, so there's an argument for encouraging economic development in poorer countries.

So the question of whether there's an optimum human population for the planet is a fair one (assuming you can define optimum). But I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is one answer ("It depends"?).

C.Gee

John Holland:

Just as there are differences between facetiousness and irony, so there are differences between deference to authority and respect of expertise.

One might need to know the difference between opinion and judgment, prejudice and discrimination - indeed, faith and skepticism - in order to determine those differences.

We know you do not suffer fools gladly, but with sarcasm and facetiousness. I suspect you are also glad when fools suffer. Go ahead. Press that button! It is the ultimate sneer, the dernier cri in contempt.

John Holland

C.Gee- I do suspect, by and large, the difference in practice between facetiousness and irony lies in whether the ends to which they are directed are in accordance with those of the perceiver. This site (like most sites) is full of very sneery language from all sides.
I apologies for sometimes going over the top.
However, the post from Jill that you defend as piercing rhetoric seems to me to be as nasty and sneering (and smeering) as anything I've read. Is she being ironic when she claims Hamilton and Flannery have said people should kill themselves?
Few would diagree with your middle paragraph, though it's very rare for anyone to apply it to more than one half of the equation- the scientist who agrees with me is a brave and learned expert, the one who disagrees is a incompitant dupe or a corrupt manipulator.

For what its worth, your comment about population control seems right.

John.

Charles: I framed my answer badly - I wrote it quickly. I should have said "I maintain that even if..." and "Bjorn Lomborg says...". But he does say that it would be much better to spend the collosal sums of money involved in trying, vainly, to stop changes in global climate, on doing something about endemic diseases, education and health instead. That it is what I wished to drive home.
C.Gee: Well, China for one has definite ideas on what constitutes over-population, hence the one child policy. However, obviously, we are not only not the only species with the right to exist on this planet, but also, without the present interdependent network of fellow-beings spread through out the skies, the seas, rivers, lakes and lands of the Earth, we ourselves would perish. At the moment we are clearing rain forests and mountain forests, draining marsh-land, vacuuming the oceans, the rivers and the lakes, of all life, netting migratory birds and so on. As a result fish, birds, insects, reptiles, animals, trees and other plants - all forms of life apart from ourselves - are progressively being eliminated from the surface of the Earth. When the tipping point is reached not only will there be no food for us but the very earth will start turning to desert, water will become less and less abundant, and the sea, lakes and rives will be barren of all life. A child of three could tell you that the cause for this progressive impoverishment of the biodiversity of the planet is basically caused by the ever-increasing number of humans alive on the Earth and their need to eat. Not rocket science. I doubt that it is beyond the wit of man to work out the optimum number of inhabitants for the many different environments in the world - clearly fewer people can live in the Sahara than in the well-watered, fertile soils of Northern Europe, for e.g. China, with 1/6 of the world's population has woken up to the danger and is the only country so far with enough intelligence and foresight to begin to tackle this danger.
John Holland: Is it unusual for people to choose the evidential factors that prove their point? Naturally I select the things that support my argument, and quote authors who are better informed than I could ever be myself. To have knowledge of a subject one reads. Someone who has read about whatever subject it may be obviously has some knowledge of the subject, even if he/she has not done the original research. So I would say that Lord Lawson does have knowledge of what he writes about, and, to a lesser degree, so do I.

John.

I suggest that everyone read "Decency Fights Back" of the 12th of October by Melanie on this blog site. One in the eye for all on the AGW gravy train.

John Holland

John- your last post was passionate and eloquent. As someone who sympathises with what you say, but, on the whole, 'believes' the majority of scientists who say AGW is a genuine threat, I'm interested to know your reasons for being pretty certain it isn't.

I don't mean why, as in the euphemism for "you're wrong", I really want to know. Like you, and nearly everyone else sounding off here, I am not a scientist, so I make my choices through a mixture of what I hope is rational judgement and trust, though who we trust is, of course, largely dependant on our prior beliefs.

The level of certainty on both sides, particularly from people with almost no knowledge of the subject, staggers me.
And yet, as I've said elsewhere, people rarely say, honestly and without the use of misunderstood statistics, why they believe what they do.
Melanie, for example, is crystalline in her certainty on the subject, but has no more scientific knowledge than I do, and expects us to take it on trust that scientists agreeing with her are honest, and those disagreeing are corrupt. The subject deserves better than this.

John.

john Holland: Perhaps we should move on to the "Decency Fights Back" blog as most contributors to this subject are now there? Disappointingly I can only say that the anti-AGW authors and researchers have persuaded me to take their side much more than their pro-AGW opponents have. The reason is books, no more, no less.