Climate Change IV - Rise of the Eco-Fascists

Well some enviro-wackos had the idea of making a short video for something called the “10:10 Campaign”…it all went horribly wrong…
(apologizes should be offered for the terrible engrish in this vid - barely understandable)

(view it quick - YouTube has been pulling this vid)

from the Telegraph article:

Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail!

I first that it was a satiric spoof…but noooooo…somebody actually thought this was a “good idea”…massive face-plant time!

That was just spectacularly bad. I can’t believe how poor their judgment was in making that. :loco:

Idiotic in the extreme. Makes me want to create an oil slick.

David Ginola +1 - focus on the damn football. Two losses to bottom three clubs already this season is pitiful.

This seems to be turning into quite a farce. Some additional news and an update or two on this latest from the eco-w(e)acko contingent:

10:10 exploding skeptical children video “disappears” … from

Eco-Jihad - The Movie from the site …lots of pictures !

Further info from the Telegraph coverage:

Go Green or We’ll Kill Your Kids!

I must say, this was a brilliant move on the 10:10 Campaign to attract attention… :roflmao:

This was just depressing, the idiots who made this must be completely ignorant to how they themselves are perceived by those who disagree with the amount of alarm generated by global warming.

What on earth were they thinking? What idiotic asshat approved this, let alone saw it through production?

Never thought I’d agree with TC on something environmentally related, but he’s spot on about this.

What knobheads thought this shit up?

I was so surprised anyone in their right mind would think it was ok, I went and had a look at their site yesterday. At that time, they still had the comments up and running, and a half assed apology of sorts and seemed to think it would all blow over and wondered why people were still harping on about it.

A few hours later, the comments were disabled, checked this morning and Facebook link is now gone and so it seems are just about all of their sponsors. A proper apology is now up but these guys are toast.

Good. If they are that stupid about something as serious as human-driven global warming, it’s probably good they are out of business.

Wow, when one thread is obviously lost, just start a new one. AGW denialism is quite the unsinkable rubber ducky, isn’t it. If you want to keep arguing this topic, Climate Change III isn’t locked yet, and I have a rather pertinent post sitting there unanswered.

Some recent news on the demise of the Warmist scam/fraud/charade/money-making machine.

The Scientific World is Fracturing is how the resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society after 67 years.
"The APS is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, with 48,000 members. He is scathing of the fall from grace of the once renowned institution.
Anthony Watts is calling it “…an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.”
From Dr. Lewis:

[quote][i] For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me"[/i][/quote]

String words and a significant action from a man of long recognized status.

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Quite a good read on what the AGW/Warmist fraud has self-perpetuated in the scientific community.

Anyone interested in the exposing of the AGW/Warmist fraud in New Zealand? 9 degrees vs 0.06 degrees…its NOT the same.

The story of a “warming” that just never existed…and the lies that tried to keep it going ($$$'s)

New Zealand’s NIWA temperature train wreck

New Zealand - Where did that “Warming” go?

I put something about that over here:
I was trying to approach it from a purely behavioral perspective.

If I tell you I’m an ocelot, and you try to tell me I’m not, I can just say that you are part of the conspiracy that is trying to convince me that I’m not an ocelot. If you make me look in a mirror, I’ll say that you have corrupted all the mirrors. Then I’ll try to scratch you.

The New Zealand case posted above is probably going to turn out to be a very significant legal precedent in shutting this scam down via court actions.
Looks to be interesting.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The New Zealand case posted above is probably going to turn out to be a very significant legal precedent in shutting this scam down via court actions.
Looks to be interesting.[/quote]

I seriously doubt that. I wonder if you actually looked into the claims being made and like any good skeptic would have a look at the counter arguments, or *gasp, copy and paste without a moments thought and took everything you read at face value.


You might note in the NIWA Statement of Defence, just about every claim is denied, and they go on to say,

[quote]13. It denies paragraph 13, and says:
(a) The 7SS trend is approximately +0.9°C (±0.3°C, 95% confidence interval) over the 100-year period from 1909 to 2009;
(b) The global temperature trend, published in the Fourth (and most recent) IPCC Assessment in 2007 is 0.74°C (±0.18°C, 90% confidence interval) over the period 1906 to 2005;[/quote]

Or if that is too much, you can try this which has a good background on the subject. WHEN ASSES GO TO LAW

Seems, this will get laughed out of court, there will be the typical whinging from climate deniers that never even read past a headline and the NZ temperature record will continue to show what it always has shown, considerable warming over the past 100 years.

Mick, anything on Hal Lewis? I will bet my lunch money for a year that his resignation turns out to be nothing, but I’m wondering just how much of a nothing if will be, and with what particularly naught nuances. :laughing:

Well, it’s like how the warming deniers made such a big to-do about so-called “Climategate”, which turned out to be nothing: like Piltdown Man, it caused a great hubbub in the “minds” of the anti-science people, but real science progressed as it always does.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The New Zealand case posted above is probably going to turn out to be a very significant legal precedent in shutting this scam down via court actions.
Looks to be interesting.[/quote]

oh, that guy TC is so funny. “significant legal precedent” says he. :laughing: :laughing: when lay people usually start making theses conclusions, i just choke up and swallow some barf that came up the wrong way.

Climategate was investigated by whom? and determined not to be relevant to the ongoing debate about global warming by whom?

[quote]British science academy publishes climate change guide

by Staff Writers
London (AFP) Sept 30, 2010
Britain’s national science academy released a new guide on climate change Thursday, setting out what is known and what remains unclear after a series of scandals about global warming research. The Royal Society guide says there is “strong evidence” that changes in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere caused by human activity – notably a rise in carbon dioxide – are the dominant cause of recent global warming.

But it also outlines the debates that continue to rage, including over the effect of variations in the energy emitted by the Sun, and says several areas are not well understood, including how the ice sheets on Greenland and Western Antarctica are melting.

Despite the “absence of perfect knowledge”, however, it says world governments must act, warning: “The potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.”

A previous Royal Society guide, published in 2007, was organised as a point-by-point rebuttal of the “misleading” arguments about climate change, including that computer models are unreliable.

According to the BBC, this was updated partly as a result of complaints by 43 of the society’s members, who were concerned it was too strident.

The new 19-page guide was published after a series of rows dented the credibility of established climate science.

The UN climate change panel which won a Nobel prize after a landmark 2007 report into global warming admitted it had exaggerated the speed at which Himalayan glaciers were melting, while a leading British research centre was accused of manipulating its data, although it strongly denied this.

“Much of the public debate on climate change is polarised at present, which can make it difficult to get a good overview of the science,” said John Pethica, the Royal Society’s vice-president who helped compile the guide.

“This guide explains where the science is clear and established, and also where it is less certain.”

The guide, which can be found at, has been prepared by leading international scientists, most of them fellows of the society, and is based on extensive published works.[/quote]

Little bit of backtracking here as well. Why? How should we “view” this? According to the full report, we are not in a position to determine sea level increases or final temperatures. This major backtrack was not included in the above media report but it is in the report, itself. Wonder why the media did not print what would be the most newsworthy of the new stance?

Take a gander at the sea level rise since 1880 and then over thousands of years at this site:

I post this just to provide a sense of the magnitude or lack thereof in much of what we are seeing today. Also, given that it has been on a stready progression since 1880 when we came out of the mini Ice Age, one wonders where the CO2 emissions were and how they were causing these sea level rises when most “scientists” state that this has stepped up since the 1950s. What then was causing these sea level rises from 1880 to 1950? and could not the same be causing the rise since 1950?

Thanks. That was a good summary of the state of the science. … 4294972963