And these are the liberals that tell us the “science is settled”.

The whole of human-caused “Global Warming” (or “Cimate Change”, “Global Climate Disruption”, or whatever the scare-us brand that they are using) IS A GINORMOUS SCAM.

The correct thing to do is to call out the liberals. The other thing to do is to ignore thier warnings and their goofy guidelines on how we are to live. Just ignore the liberals.

This is all the enviros have left…”Shock and Awe”

Nobody believes them…and they did it to themselves.

The ultimate result for most of these groups.

It’s rather disgusting, honestly. It’s not going to convince anyone to take part who wasn’t going to. All it did was get people talking about them and how horrid their taste was.

Alz said:
The whole of human-caused “Global Warming” (or “Cimate Change”, “Global Climate Disruption”, or whatever the scare-us brand that they are using) IS A GINORMOUS SCAM.

We had 3 days in September where we broke all time records for heat. One might think it is global warming…until…we found out that the last time it was this hot was in 1892.

That is 118 years ago.

I am pretty sure the cause of the heat wave 118 years ago was not because someone drove SUV’s or the electrical plants were buring coal, or anything doing with the use of oil

As a matter of fact, 118 years ago, they used wind energy (to get their water from the ground), they used sod on their houses for insulation….

I conclude like you Alz…it is a SCAM of epic proportions.

This story leads the Mediate newsletter, yet, for some reason it is buried in the actual site? How come? Why is this not on the front page as it was ranked highest on the newsletter? Could this site, think that, well yes, we better report on it (Weak btw).

How will this benefit the cause?

The film was written by “Four Weddings and a Funeral” screenwriter Richard Curtis and directed by music video and commercial director Dougal Wilson. It features actress Gillian Anderson, British soccer stars Peter Crouch and David Ginola and music by Radiohead.

Here’s one benefit….

I suppose it is time to conduct a funeral for all of these morons careers about now.

Here is what we are dealing with…. clearly the EnviroNAZIS are led by a wonderful and funny woman….

“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,” Franny Armstrong told the Telegraph.

I suppose the 300,000 are in her head laughing at her right now.

and this:

“At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change,” the 10:10 team said in the statement. “Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.”

Oh well indeed. I beleive a counter protest is need at 10:10 rallies. big banners, like ” I used my car to get here today, care to Blow me up?” “I still don’t use those mercury filled bulbs, can I be splattered?” ” I am at this rally today because in the end, we need to blow up people who disagree with me!”

Sony, where are you bastards on this one?

All sponsors of the 10:10 Organization such as Eaga, Kyocera, O2, Sony, The Ashden Trust, Esmee Fairbairn, Wates Foundation, The GD Charitable Trust, The Funding Network, The Guardian and National Magazine Company , what a fine bunch!!

These pricks are claiming support in 40 countries. Imagine if you kid had to endure the level of insanity that the Brits do. I would be storming the school. imagine this

ActionAid, a charity which co-ordinates a schools programme with 10:10, approved the decision to withdraw the film, and stated “Our job is to encourage proactive decisions at class level to reduce carbon emissions. We did it because evidence shows children are deeply concerned about climate change and because we see the impacts of it in the developing world where a lot of our work is. So we think the 10:10 campaign is very important, but the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate.”,

Oh good, what else are they working on? I guess they were all ready for a classroom discussion across the nation with this film in hand and prepared, as they had to be ( It was to be shown in theaters in the UK before movies, SO THEY ONLY pulled the righteousness when the hammer fell, but they were there for the whole thing.

I will be voting in 20 days in Canada, it is time to start challenging these people everywhere and all the time.

Well, it seems that the heat is getting to them., Look at this from the UK 10:10 website. You know he’s working from home, so maybe cut him some slack, he missed some of the editing sessions leading up to the release

I wonder if he got the ok from Franny for this one, because it is now get this,,,,, “we are are a young creative team to blame. Yup, that writer is like 55…
But keep up the heat here. Call them out for what they are……

Kyocera has pulled all funding.

From his lips to bloody ears everywhere

As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people. We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours.

We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release

I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.

10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this. We are going to investigate what happened, review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors.

This media coverage for this film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for the cause of saving the climate, nor for 10:10, and we certainly didn’t mean to do anything to distract from all the efforts of those in other organisations who are working so hard to secure effective action on climate change.

If you have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. I’m sorry not to have emailed you about this more quickly – although I have followed developments closely, I’ve been working from home with a four-week-old baby. I thank you for your patience and your support for the 10:10 campaign.

Eugenie Harvey

Director 10:10 UK

Cancon2 said:
Well, it seems that the heat is getting to them., Look at this from the UK 10:10 website. You know he’s working from home, so maybe cut him some slack, he missed some of the editing sessions leading up to the release

I wonder if he got the ok from Franny for this one, because it is now get this,,,,, “we are are a young creative team to blame. Yup, that writer is like 55…
But keep up the heat here. Call them out for what they are……

Kyocera has pulled all funding.

From his lips to bloody ears everywhere

As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people. We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours.

We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release

I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.

10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this. We are going to investigate what happened, review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors.

This media coverage for this film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for the cause of saving the climate, nor for 10:10, and we certainly didn’t mean to do anything to distract from all the efforts of those in other organisations who are working so hard to secure effective action on climate change.

If you have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. I’m sorry not to have emailed you about this more quickly – although I have followed developments closely, I’ve been working from home with a four-week-old baby. I thank you for your patience and your support for the 10:10 campaign.

Eugenie Harvey

Director 10:10 UK

Damn this sucks, what a incredibly stupid commercial. Oh and Eugenie bite me

Not sure why mediaite didn’t pick up the actual site apology.

Yeah, that sucks. No defense on that BS from me. Plus, individual acts are nice and all, but the big prize is conversion from fossil to renewable fuels. This is just stupid shock value that will only set the debate back into juvenile finger-pointing. WTG… jackasses.

Paul Westlake said:
but the big prize is conversion from fossil to renewable fuels.

As a geologist (retired) who spent a good many years in various oilfields around the world, I grow distressed by the fact that we use fossil fuels to enable our transportation and provide power for our homes and industries. Yet, I am also a practical man, and must ask what else can we use? Solar power, wind power, power derived from wave energy, and various forms of bio-fuels still are not efficient but we need that power NOW. A limited amount of energy can be derived from hydro-electric sources, but not enough. Nuclear power is a viable alternative but everytime someone proposes the construction of a nuclear power plant, the bug-eyed environmental whackos come out of the woodwork, carrying their signs depicting a mushroom cloud.

When you get down to cases, we have a planet that is overloaded with people–we are literally reproducing ourselves out of existence (classic examples are the inoceramus and donax bivalves.) Yet, none of us wants to use restraints in procreation (you have people literally starving in Ethiopia but if you’ll notice the heart-rending commercials, there are always infants with distended bellies pulling at your heartstrings–no one stops to mention that some people simply should not breed. Heretofore, eugenics has been a taboo consideration–your opinion of that is up to you.

So, Paul, what’s the answer? Do we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow or do we continue to use these fuels as prudently as we know how to do so? When do you think we can make this quantum leap from fossil to renewable fuels?

pyrope said:

I don’t mind a provocative debate at all. But yes, eugenics is, and should remain taboo. It inevitably leads to subjective selection and it’s just not a road we should ever travel. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address very real issues of overpopulation. It’s true that populations continue to soar in many poor countries but breeding is actually the last thing on a lot of those people’s minds. A terrifyingly significant portion of the babies born in places like Somalia are a result of rape, which is not a happy-homemaker activity. A majority of women in third world countries would use birth control if they had access to it and could afford it. Every study done on the issue has shown a direct correlation between women’s rights and birth rates. The more control women have over their own reproductive systems, the more access they have to reproductive services, and the more they can afford those services, the lower the birth rate is, in just about every single case. The nearly ironclad conclusion of those studies has unnerved the neo-conservative, white supremacist movement to the point where they’re beginning to alarm some of their less extreme cousins on the issue by citing ever-lower birth rates among whites as a threat to the white minority in America. So the answer to population growth, which one recent study suggested would top out 9 billion in 2075, then start to decline (though there is some dispute), is in economic growth. And we just wasted thirty years of international economic growth on supply-side economic theories that concentrated 85% of the world’s wealth in the top 10% of the population, and 1% of the wealth in the bottom 50% – globally! We can’t address the energy issues by addressing population growth alone, but we CAN address population growth by using capitalism to lift the rest of the world, instead of using capitalism to rip-off the rest of the world (except China!). But that takes regulation and then the libertarian wing gets all upset and we’re right back to square one.

On the energy front, you’re right – nuclear is the logical stop-gap. And I think we can assuage the fears of the environmentalists if we take nuclear energy out of the hands, at least partially, of the private sector. The U.S. Navy has a proven track record of managing mobile reactors with perfection for decades now. If the American people could be convinced that the Navy’s level of expertise would be the standard, while simultaneously funding a Manhattan Project-level R&D program for using or disposing of nuclear waste within twenty years, I think it would be a slam dunk. With our short-term energy needs satisfied, we could put funding to breakthrough technologies, from next generation renewables to fusion.

(I meant threat to the white “majority” in America, but forgot to change it after I rewrote the sentence. I’m sure you got the point but wanted to clarify.)

Amazingly, I think 10:10 made a promo here that does not favor their own cause. Take out the graphic and narration at the end and you’d swear this was this was a biting commentary on the pro-global warming, pro environment crowd. Instead we learn that this was, in fact, conceived to promote the pro-global warming, pro environmental reform agenda.

Great piece of Monty-Python inspired comedy, but grossly misses the mark for what they are attempting to achieve.

Alz says: “The correct thing to do is to call out the liberals. ”

Liberals are not the scientists who have concluded that we are making the planet uninhabitable.

Look: if the reactionary science deniers are right, then we will have energy independence sooner than if we don’t act as quickly as the alarmists are suggesting we need to. The worst case scenario is that we’ll waste some federal resources.

If the scientists are right, and we take the path the reactionaries like Glenn Beck and Alz would have us take, then we will not have energy independence and greater security. Worse case scenario is unthinkable. The permafrost thaws in 4-8 years releasing massive amounts of natural carbon and methane creating a rapid, positive feedback loop that greatly increases the Earth’s temperature in 50 years leading to a complete breakdown in all civil institutions, of the United States and of civilization.

Shouldn’t we decide on the side of greater caution?

10: 10 doesn’t need to blow up denialists like Alz to successfully make this point, and by doing so only gives yellow propagandists like Beck ammunition to use to discredit a cause that is indeed urgent and vital to our national security. How the corporate-backed science denialists got the upper hand in this debate is scary, but they are flat out wrong. We are causing our own destruction. We stopped it once (flourocarbons destroying the ozone), and we need to take on big oil and stop this slow train wreck that is under way. Or else our descendants will be screwed.

GlennBeckReview said:
Alz says: “The correct thing to do is to call out the liberals. ” Liberals are not the scientists who have concluded that we are making the planet uninhabitable. Look: if the reactionary science deniers are right, then we will have energy independence sooner than if we don’t act as quickly as the alarmists are suggesting we need to. The worst case scenario is that we’ll waste some federal resources. If the scientists are right, and we take the path the reactionaries like Glenn Beck and Alz would have us take, then we will not have energy independence and greater security. Worse case scenario is unthinkable. The permafrost thaws in 4-8 years releasing massive amounts of natural carbon and methane creating a rapid, positive feedback loop that greatly increases the Earth’s temperature in 50 years leading to a complete breakdown in all civil institutions, of the United States and of civilization. Shouldn’t we decide on the side of greater caution? 10: 10 doesn’t need to blow up denialists like Alz to successfully make this point, and by doing so only gives yellow propagandists like Beck ammunition to use to discredit a cause that is indeed urgent and vital to our national security. How the corporate-backed science denialists got the upper hand in this debate is scary, but they are flat out wrong. We are causing our own destruction. We stopped it once (flourocarbons destroying the ozone), and we need to take on big oil and stop this slow train wreck that is under way. Or else our descendants will be screwed.

GlennBeckReview said:
Alz

The whole thing is a scam. The Liberals are DEMANDING that each and every one of us bet everything we have on the equivalent of THEIR stock picks – not for next week, but for 50 years.

None of it makes sense.

It has little to do with the environment, but everything to do with gaining power over people – just what Modern Liberals/Progressives/Socialists do.

Alz said:
None of it makes sense.

It has little to do with the environment, but everything to do with gaining power over people – just what Modern Liberals/Progressives/Socialists do.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.