UPDATE: More thoughts on the offensive ‘No Pressure’ video — and the denialsphere’s hypocritical reaction

UPDATE:  The discredited Anthony Watts, who consistently writes (or reposts) the most offensive pieces in the denialsphere, has outdone himself.  In his effort to  smear climate science realists, he actually got suckered into repeating the message of the most infamous and murderous terrorist in the world!

Memo to Watts:  You know your anti-science smear-fest has hit a new low when a blogger like Keith Kloor calls you out.  Kloor comments on Watts’ latest masterwork:

… Andrew W correctly gets your intention when he writes in a comment above:

“Good on you Anthony, we need to get a link going in peoples minds between Bin Laden and the likes of Romm and McKibben”….

Just as the British video deserves to be widely denounced, so too does Watts — both for the smear and for serving as a vessel for Bin Laden’s disinformation.

Earlier this year, Watts directly questioned the patriotism of both Tamino and Rabett (see “Peak readership for anti-science blogs?“) leading Tamino to write, “This just might be the most loathsome thing Watts has yet done with his blog.”  Now Watts tries to link Bin Laden with the U.S. environmental movement — and he seems to think McKibben and I need to keep denouncing Bin Laden.  I say keep denouncing because I’ve written about the trap Watts fell into before — see Limbaugh, Fox News suckered by Bin Laden into repeating his disinformation and message of hatred.

To repeat the obvious:  Terrorists try very hard to spread their disinformation.  A key goal is to get others to spread it for them, especially ones who are holed up in a cave somewhere.  Thus terrorists craft their disinformation into a sensational message that they hope gullible members of the global media will repeat. In his post, Watts got suckered into repeating the message of the number one terrorist in the world.

What follows is the original post on the offensive UK video.  The entire analysis has been vindicated by Watts’ recent post:

It is laughable for any of the anti-science, pro-pollution disinformers to attack the idiotic, offensive “No Pressure” video by the British 10:10 group but give a free pass to the lies and hate speech they routinely spout.  You can safe ignore the comments or posts of anyone who hasn’t denounced people like

Those folks maintain a noxious double standard:  They can spread endless lies and smears and never apologize for a word of it, but are outraged at everything anyone else does, whether it is beyond tasteless crap like this “No Pressure” video, which actually deserves condemnation or, merely the IPCC Fourth Assessment, a science-based effort to inform the public on how to avoid misery and suffering for billions of humans, which contains a few small errors, but mostly downplays the multiple catastrophes humanity faces if we actually listen to the disinformers.

As I’ve said, none of this excuses that disgusting “No Pressure” video.  I agree with Bill McKibben on that.

But the difference is that those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and hence the health and well-being of our children and billions of people this century quickly denounce the few offensive over-reaches of those who claim to share our goals “” but those trying to destroy a livable climate, well, for them lies and hate speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not only tolerated, but promoted.

Again, please keep the comments civil.  This isn’t WUWT, which allows and indeed encourages the most vicious comments that smear people like Gore, Holdren and Hansen.

Note:  The commenters from the anti-science side here — and Anthony Watts recent post discussed above — truly vindicate this analysis.  Note how they try to equate the people behind a short offensive video that was quickly condemned and taken down — indeed equate the entire environmental movement — with one of the greatest mass murderers in human history and/or the most murderous terrorist of our times.

This post has been updated.

103 Responses to UPDATE: More thoughts on the offensive ‘No Pressure’ video — and the denialsphere’s hypocritical reaction

  1. Fred Lua says:

    As a great man once said, if someone is a constant complainer (as the deniers are), then they will still complain even if you put them in the paradise. They’ll complain for bad reception for their phone and what not.

    For any debate there are tricks that people can use to derail it. The deniers and their backers have been using them persistently to derail the climate debate.
    It is sad to have come to the point to say to the deniers, no pressure.

  2. Rob Watson says:

    Though I found the video nauseating & I couldn’t finish watching, I also could not help but feeling that nature will discard us with about the same dispassion and dispatch if we don’t learn to fit in better. The profound irony of all those decrying ecofascism is that by resisting minor and obvious choices now, they are almost guaranteeing the thing they fear most.

  3. caerbannog says:

    Folks, compare the pro-science community’s reaction to the 10:10 misfire with the denier community’s reactions to their own misfires/slurs.

    Which side is more willing to call out its own? The obvious answer to this question will tell you all you need to know about both communities.

  4. Mary says:

    Wow, way to miss the point:

    You can safe ignore the comments or posts of anyone who hasn’t denounced people like….

    So you can use the button on them then?

    You know, I’ve been an ally for this movement. I firmly believe that human-caused warming is already causing serious consequences, and is about to usher in many more.


    [JR: Enough with the concern trolls already. No “ally for this movement” would equate ignoring those who spread disinformation with murdering people. Seriously. I’ll repeat. Saying you can ignore the lies of liars is not the same as saying you want to murder them — that is your equation, which reveals your true colors.]

  5. Colorado Bob says:

    The Swat Valley –
    I never saw a number on just how bad the rainfall was there , until this story from the Guardian . ” It was raining so hard, you couldn’t see a man standing in front of you ” …………..

    In more than 60 hours of non-stop torrential rainfall, the floods washed all that away. The north-west normally receives 500mm (20in) of rain in the month of July; over one five-day period 5,000mm fell. “It was incredible,” said Sameenullah Afridi, a local United Nations official.

    That’s 196.8 inches of rain , 16 feet .

  6. mike roddy says:

    Tom Fuller at WUWT somehow managd to blame you and Bill for the video, even though you both renounced it. Kind of like the Bishop of Burgundy asking Joan of Arc if she consorted with Satan. After she said “no”, he burned her at the stake anyway.

    Fuller’s post is an example of the bad wiring and cognitive failure that got us into this mess.

    [JR: Precisely. Tobis has thoroughly debunked Fuller. The fact that Fuller posts on WUWT tells you all you need to know about him.]

  7. Susan Anderson says:

    Mary, you have an awfully thin skin. Seems you care more about critiqueing one side of the phony argument than the other “side”. Will you not vote because of the Palins and O’Donnells? People are people, and all flavors are interesting unless and until they endanger others. I’m sorry you feel that the vast quantitative attacks that attempt to kill the messenger deserve more credit than those trying to get people to think for themselves and get the information from original sources rather than predigested and changed.

    I suggest you read The Republican War on Science, Merchants of Doubt, or one of the many fact-filled exposes of the “war” that people in their various ways are trying to move past so an undereducated public can assimilate what is going on and observe the change in weather (climate being weather over space and time) for themselves without having it explained away to fit their comfort zone – doing nothing.

    I respect your personal efforts, but this talk of alliances is wrong. You don’t need alliances to observe the facts. You only need them when vast intense continuous attacks on the truth prevent it getting out.

  8. toby says:

    Hi, Mary,

    I was with you up to: “I would say you’ve lost me”

    Really? Over a video Joe has repeatedly and vehemently condemmed, and because you find his condemnation does not coincide with your own? And your “Just aim the button at me” is completely non-sequitur – Joe has condemmed the button metaphor so why should anyone “aim it at you”?

    What are you going to do? Start rallying with denialists on “global cooling”, even though you know its a crock?

    Joe pointed out that denialists always circle the wagons to support their own, no matter how wrong they are. Look at the way they condemned “blacklists”, but supported Imhofe and Cuccinelli to the hilt (with the only exception of Steven McIntyre in the case of Cuccinelli, but even he did not regret his targetting of Michael Mann).

    In this case, believers in Global Warming rejected an over-the-top and offensive video made by an organization on their side. We should be proud that we did that and, ok, take our lumps. And move on.

  9. Brian J says:

    The video proves Monckton and Watts correct: this movement has nothing to do with the environment. There is no double standard, because you get called out for acting like terrorists and Nazis when you… act like terrorists and Nazis!

    It’s about money, power, and control. And patriotic Americans are chomping at the bit to ensure that, after November, you’ll never have the chance to seize them and make your 10:10 dreams a reality.

    No Pressure… no platform for terrorists.

  10. John Mason says:


    “You know, I’ve been an ally for this movement. I firmly believe that human-caused warming is already causing serious consequences, and is about to usher in many more.”

    Then join us in recognising that when an organisation that campaigns for action against climate change gets it so very wrong, it should be openly criticised, not covered-up-for, as is almost invariably the case when a figure or organisation in the ranks of opposition really jumps the shark – and that’s an almost daily event!

    Cheers – John

  11. Shorter Brian J:

    Criticizing only one side while excusing the other is … not a double standard! No Sir! No! No! No!


    Why are the trolls and concern trolls somehow able to get their comments past moderation? Is Climate Progress being cyber-attacked or something?


    [JR: I’m letting them through so you can see their hypocrisy and what we’re up against.]

  12. John Mason says:


    “This movement”, eh?

    10:10 is one of many independent movements that campaigns for action against climate change. The fact that what they produced took us all by surprise should, if you are observant, indicate that there is no all-encompassing, precisely-coordinated campaign across the board – if there was we would have made damn sure the film didn’t even get made in the first place.

    “Money, power and control”….. that brings large oil corporations and the anti-science propaganda machines they sponsor to my mind.

    Cheers – John

  13. M says:

    I found it a disgusting and inappropriate video.

    Having said that – I wonder if it is a difference between British TV culture and US culture? I remember being similarly disgusted by the exploding fat man scene in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life when I watched it as a kid, and really, the Black Knight scene that everyone loves to quote (“just a scratch!”) has a guy standing there with blood pumping out of a missing limb, but for some reason that’s funny… so it really isn’t always obvious where the line is between “disgusting” and “amusing” and I think the line may be in a different place in the UK than it is in the US…


  14. bsalert says:

    The thing is none of us believe that you global warming idiots actually care a jot for the environment ….. bet you’ve got a dishwasher and drink bottled water. Just like this Curtis guy who made this film with public money and has three homes.

    [JR: As I’ve said many times, the environment is not my greatest concern — the health and well-being of my daughter and all children and countless future generations is, however. You will probably live long enough to see the preventable devastation your anti-science, pro-pollution buddies have helped bring down on humanity.]

  15. toby says:


    Wasn’t Monckton the one who who called some global warming protestors “Hitler Youth”?

    When I read your condemnation of that, I will take you seriously.

  16. Is it possible that this video could be produced without oversight? Did anybody do a reality check on the script? Did millions get spent for something that is at best a bullet for the “skeptics” (septics)?
    This video is a denier’s wet dream. It’s unbelievable that a pro-earth site would have posted it without review.
    The damage is done. We’ve shot ourselves in the foot. Own it. Fix it.
    Got me.

  17. John Mason says:

    It goes to show that peer-review is a useful procedure – and not only in academic circles! I hope all organisations working in this sphere take that on board as a useful lesson.

    Cheers – John

  18. Chris Winter says:

    Brian J wrote: “The video proves Monckton and Watts correct: this movement has nothing to do with the environment.”

    No, what it proves — as if more proof were needed — is that your side will seize upon any instance of bad judgement, or even a typographical error, in an attempt to discredit the entire environmental movement.

    The 10.10 organization commissioned a video, saw the result was a mistake, and repudiated it.

    We’re still waiting for your side to repudiate its mistakes.

  19. Wit'sEnd says:

    The biosphere of Earth is in its death throes – everything from phytoplankton to trees hundreds of feet tall, and all the species that rely upon them – and people are hand-wringing over a video that is so cartoonish as to be comic. Compare the garish silliness of those explosions to the sort of credible violence American moviegoers regularly flock to see! Or the disgusting all-American game of football that leaves players debilitated with dementia. Then think about the real cruelty that is being inflicted on our planet, this beautiful paradise that we are destroying as quickly as we possibly can. Now THAT is really nauseating.

  20. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Joe… You are exactly right. This whole thing wreaks of double standard. They continually do exactly what they claim the people of this video are doing. That is one of the reasons I know that our side is the right side on this issue.

    That said, the video is a very poor example of the standard we should hold ourselves to.

    And THAT said, the 1010 people need to get on the freaking stick and get every copy of their copyrighted material taken down from Youtube. No exceptions. No sleep until they find every copy. To hell with anyone claiming censorship. The video belongs to them. You can’t censor yourself.

    Do you hear this Franny, Lizzie? You can’t shrug this off. You need to do something.

  21. NeilT says:

    It’s ironic that the disinformer trolls on this thread actually put some reality behind the video.

    Yes we’ve got dishwashers, yes we’ve got cars, yes some of us probably drink bottled water (I know in France I do because their minerals upset me). But so what? WE are looking for a better answer, looking for better choices that give us the quality of life AND balance our position within the climate.

    They are? What? Going to use political influence to shut us up and force their views of the world on us. In the process killing hundreds of millions of people……

    And who has the moral high ground even with this misguided video???

  22. Chuck McKinnon says:


    I’ve never visited your website before, but I appreciate your repudiation of this video. I’m a climate change skeptic (I spent enough time working on market and credit risk analytics models to distrust linear approximations of non-linear systems), but not really aware of who the big “players” are in the ongoing online debate.

    I prefer explanations for my political opponents’ motives that don’t require me to believe they’re evil, warped, etc. It is nice to see that decency isn’t dead and that you’re willing to condemn “one of your own” when they go too far.

    Thank you for standing up publicly for decency; whatever our policy differences might be, I wanted to give you credit for that.

    [JR: I appreciate your comment. You may be interested to know that 1) essentially all of the observed nonlinearities in the climate system are positive (i.e. amplifying) feedbacks and 2) the overwhelming majority of global climate models largely ignore most of those feedbacks. I wouldn’t say the GCMs are linear, but to the extent that they do not adequately capture the nonlinearities, they lowball the likely climate impacts we will face.]

  23. Sailesh Rao says:

    “The next time you pull the family barge in for a fill-up, check it out: The gas pumps read “Unleaded.” You might reasonably suppose this is because naturally occurring lead has been thoughtfully removed from the gasoline. But you would be wrong. There is no lead in gasoline unless somebody puts it there. And, a little more than seventy-five years ago, some of America’s leading corporations–General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey (known nowadays as Exxon)–were that somebody. They got together and put lead, a known poison, into gasoline, for profit.”

    So begins the “Secret History of Lead” at,0 . It is a must read article if you wish to understand what we are up against. And the profits in this climate change battle dwarf the profits in that multi-generational, ongoing Lead battle by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, it’s silly of us to expect the opposition to play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

    I believe that we need to reframe the battle in order to make any headway, and that our best bet is to reframe it as the battle to save Life, to halt the extinction of species and thereby, our own extinction. Ultimately, isn’t that what we all truly care about, far more than the fact that the climate is changing?

  24. John Mason says:

    LOL@bsalert #14!

    No dishwasher. The occasional bottle of water if stuck, and I then refill the bottle from the tap until it cracks. Haven’t flown since 1980. Grow my own veg & catch my own fish, and use cut up windblown trees as heating when the winter bites (otherwise an extra padded shirt). And yes life ain’t bad.

    You need to take your stereotypewriter back to the store you bought it from. It’s malfunctioned!

    Cheers – John

  25. Steve Bloom says:

    IMHO this was one post too many on this topic, Joe. You could have devoted the space instead to e.g. these extremely alarming new results. (Note that the 60 to 90 cm/decade figure cited in the release is in error, and should read 6 to 9 cm/decade.)

    Re #24: Thanks for that very important link, Sailesh. It’s a reminder that there is an endless supply of people willing to ignore toxic effects in order to make a quick buck.

  26. Lew Johns says:

    Those who argue from a position Grounded in Science can afford to toss out the occasional bit of Chaff that sneaks in. Come to think of it, Science itself is basically a Process of winnowing Chaff. Those whose arguments are based on Chaff can never admit to any mistake or untruth lest their entire House of Cards tumble. So, no, Anthropogenic Global Heating Deniers cannot be expected to ever retract even the most Debunked of their Nonsense.

  27. Neven says:

    And THAT said, the 1010 people need to get on the freaking stick and get every copy of their copyrighted material taken down from Youtube. No exceptions. No sleep until they find every copy. To hell with anyone claiming censorship. The video belongs to them. You can’t censor yourself.

    I hope they don’t, that would make it even worse. What they have to do is follow-up and explain why they chose to do it this way. The longer they remain quiet, the worse it will get, just like with UEA when the CRU-mailhack-scandal broke loose.

    They have to apologize and explain. Big time.

    I’m still hoping this is just the first part of some kind of brilliant PR campaign to stir up controversy and then deliver the punch, but I don’t expect that level of brilliancy of people who write atrocities like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually and The Age of Stupid.

  28. Russell says:

    Please, Monsieur.Creosote, won’t you try just one more tiny green bon bon from the Advertising Council?

    We’ll all feel better when you do!

  29. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Neven…. Go spend a little time at Youtube. It’s like a feeding frenzy for the Tea Party piranha. It’s become like a recruiting video for them. I’m over there pointing out exactly this fact. The producers pulled it an apologized. The people promoting the video now are the ones you should be concerned about.

    It’s a mistake to stand by and say, “Eh, this will blow over.” Big mistake.

  30. Rob Honeycutt says:

    I think the only thing they need to explain is that it is their copyrighted material. They are the only ones with the right to use it. Everyone who is reposting it is infringing upon their copyright. Plain and simple.

    They need to say, “We made a big mistake. We apologize. But you can’t use our copyrighted material. That’s the law.” Period.

  31. LucAstro says:

    What I get from these exchanges is that the movement I am supporting and believing in is self-correcting. How refreshing in a world where looking good is the dominant motivator (me included, but I try to catch myself as often as possible: the results of which are amazing). One side of the debate is clearly not self-correcting. Although not a practicing Catholic, I can see what meant Jesus when he said: What are you looking at the straw in your brother’s eye for? And the beam in your own eye, do you not notice it? (Luke 6:41). Go Go Go 10.10.10.

  32. MapleLeaf says:

    Steve @26, thanks for the link, Turney et al’s. findings are very sobering.

    Caerbannog @3, Good point.

  33. I would imagine, that pointing out Mr. Hansen’s actual credentials could be considered “belittling” him. I think we can let the curious figure that out on their own.

    Meanwhile, I’d encourage people to read my little paper (107 pages), “On the Infra Red Radiation Heat Balance of the Atmosphere”. (Harvard Meteorological Series Monographs). Page 23 might be of particular interest to the curious.

  34. PS: To my first note. The paper is available on ScribeD.

  35. Colorado Bob says:

    I find it interesting , that the first solid report I have seen on the amount of rain that fell in Pakistan’s Swat Valley ……. 5,000 mm in 5 days , received zero comment . Not just here, but other places as well. Funny how a report of 16 feet of rain just floats by.

  36. Mike#22 says:

    Guardian writes some more: “Backlash over Richard Curtis’s 10:10 climate film”

    “A statement from the Guardian, backer of 10:10, which exclusively showcased No Pressure, said: “The film may have been somewhat tasteless, but it was an imaginative attempt to challenge public apathy over climate change, and, highly unusually for attempts to communicate about this subject, funny too.”

  37. MapleLeaf says:

    Re 34: Walter Elsasser has not been with us since 1991

    Re 36: Wow, that is a truly stunning amount of water!

  38. Richard Brenne says:

    Colorado Bob (#5 and #36) – You’re right of course and I had often wondered how much rain had fallen.

    This deserves its own post from Joe, but you can’t really blame people for not commenting on something, even so amazing, when they’re excitedly discussing something else of importance.

    All-time global measured rain records:

    12 hours, 45 inches.
    24 hours, 71.8 inches.
    48 hours, 97.1 inches.
    72 hours, 154.7 inches.
    96 hours, 191.7 inches.
    10 days, 223.5 inches.

    Each of these were in the South Indian Ocean due to tropical cyclones (called hurricanes in the Atlantic).

    So 196.8 inches of rain in 5 days, or 120 hours falling in Pakistan’s Swat Valley to trigger the floooding seems absolutely mind-blowing.

    This rainfall didn’t have the benefit of a tropical cyclone, but it did have the benefit of tremendous orographic precipitation as it ran into the mountains at the head of the Swat Valley, something I saw first-hand when living in nearby Nepal.

    That was a true atmospheric river, like a river of water vapor traveling in the atmosphere until it slammed into those mountains.

    Trenberth says that the high (I’m guessing record high – anyone know?) sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean at the time allowed this amazing phenomenon, and this is exactly the kind of scenario we’ll see more and more.

    People on other sites wanted to blame Pakistan’s overgrown infrastructure built in harm’s way and there’s something to that, but if the total was 196.8 inches of rain (16 feet, 4.8 inches as you point out) there is no mountainous place on Anthro-Earth that could withstand that, or even a substantial fraction of that. I know my city, neighborhood and house couldn’t, as I’m sure most of ours couldn’t.

    Only flat areas could have infrastructure that withstood that, although of course every lower level would be extensively flooded. Anyplace with any topography would have tremendous flooding with far more destructive power, all but a handful of the highest and best-built bridges taken out, and incredible erosion, as we’ve seen in Pakistan.

    You have a great eye for records, Colorado Bob. (Do you live in Colorado or come from there? I lived in Boulder for 20 years.) How legitimate do you think this one is? Is the Pakistan government, World Meteorological Organization and others confirming it or making it official?

    Again, tragically, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. This is with about a 1 degree F increase since 1970, which means 4% more water vapor in the atmosphere. Now imagine 8, 16, 32 and even 44% more water vapor possible by 2100.

    That would make the climate of Anthro-Earth completely unrecognizable to humans, making the evils of this video seem rather small by comparison. . .

  39. Artful Dodger says:

    How about Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee for US Senate in Nevada, and her “Second Amendment remedies”? When I grew up, advocating the overthrow of the Government by violence was called Treason. This vile way of thinking becomes a way of life, and has trapped these people in a circle of hate. They have my pity, but not my heart or my mind.

    Joe, don’t waste too much of your own life following them down this road: it is a dead end street. Better to go for a drive in the country and enjoy the beautiful Fall colours. After all, that’s what you’re fighting for!

    P.S. Did you take your annual leave yet? I can’t remember a single day since May where you weren’t either blogging or speaking somewhere. If not, I’m going to send you an Annual Pass to the National Parks, old son!

  40. Richard Brenne says:

    Good call, Artful Dodger (#40), maybe also a walk or bike ride through unfortunately diminishing fall colors (right, Wit’s End?).

  41. Anonymous says:

    Colorado Bob, do not be discouraged by lack of response. Your posts are invaluable.

    And Richard, driving around to see foliage is bad – maybe not so bad as to get you blown up with a button in a spray of red liquid! But it exemplifies the paradox of like eco-tourism. If you are polluting the atmosphere to appreciate nature, STOP. Go outside and take a walk instead. Plant a garden -or a window box if you live in the city.

    Next up: a song, let’s cannibalize “All we saying, is give peace a chance” which was such a great anthem, and revise it, to be:

    “All we are saying, is give Eaarth a chance!”

  42. Wit's End says:

    oops writing from an unconfigured location, anon 43 is me.

  43. Lou Grinzo says:

    Speaking of things ill thought out, a US member of the House has played the Nazi card over water issues:

    (In case it disappears, I have a copy if anyone is interested.)

  44. Tom Yulsman says:

    Steve Bloom: In case you’re interested, I posted something on the study you mentioned over at my blog. “Threshold for Dangerous Climate Change Closer Than Believed?”:

  45. Steve Bloom says:

    Ah, the broad vistas of the Central Valley. Home, home on derange, as it were.

  46. Roger says:

    Yes, Wit’s End, that’s easy to sing! Maybe we should all try to sing it together on 10.10! Everyone meet in front of the White House in DC at 1PM!

    Alternative nominations include substituting “climate” for “times” in “The times they are a changing,” by Bob Dylan, or perhaps “This climate is my climate, this climate is your climate, from Cal-i-for-ni-a to the New Jersey farm land!”

    Hmm…where’s that old dusty guitar of mine…or the old banjo that the ancestors brought north before the Civil War? Gee, could we get Pete Seger?

  47. Richard Brenne says:

    Anonymous Gail (and Wit’s End) at #43 and #44: Absolutely right about the driving thing. The vast majority of the time I’ve ever left my home has been by foot and bike, saving driving for times with disabled folks and 80 and 90-somethings, often famous scientists, combined with groceries, which I’ve also brought home in backpacks, bike panniers, bike trailers, by stroller and scooter. (Although I did drive to see you guys! – got to take the train the next time to Seattle though. . .)

    For those like Joe and Michael Mann and Thomas Homer-Dixon and Eco-Psychologist Thomas Doherty with small children (talk about four kids who could help save the world), it’s good to know you can still live that same lifestyle.

    Our daughter Sarah grew up walking so much that at 4 when we trekked in the Himalayas for 38 days (when my wife was teaching university there – my only overseas trips have been to live and work overseas) and Sarah wanted to give whoever was carrying her the day off, she walked at least seven days up to around 14,000 feet with no complaints, and without ever slowing any adults down, though we were prepared for that. Sociologist William Catton (author of the extremely prescient 1980 book “Overshoot” about overpopulation and overconsumption) was far more patient and impressive and backpacked around Mt. Rainier twice when two of his youngest sons were only 3, and they walked the entire way, 93 miles and 26,000 total elevation gain over two weeks each time!

    Even as a baby we walked most places and on cold days Sarah fit in my Snuggly under my large down parka, getting all my body heat. On a cold November day before leaving the Library of Congress I zipped up until she was hidden under my coat (breathing from the top and bottom with no problem) and the guard asked me what I had under my coat and I shouldn’t have said but of course did say, “The Gutenberg Bible.” I can’t remember seeing anyone less amused.

    Then I used the Super Baby Jogger (with three bicycle wheels) so often that we wore the tires down to the tubes four times. In addition to groceries and other errand-goods, whenever there was snow on the ground the stroller also carried (there were big baskets behind and below her seat) Sarah’s cross-country and downhill skis and boots, and whenever it was dry we had her in-line skates or ice skates, and she turned out to love every kind of skiing and skating, which we always did as close to home as possible.

    Sarah graduated from the bicycle trailer to the Tag-A-Long single-wheeled bicycle trailer (that she also peddles) at three and immediately wanted to go on 20 mile bike rides (okay, she was almost four).

    I think any child who grew up with that ethic would turn out similarly, in her case vowing to never eat meat or own or drive a car, and her two jobs are coaching 7 and 8-year-old ski racers and selling bicycles and inspiring as much of a non-driving lifestyle as possible with each.

    So you’re absolutely right, as is so often the case. . .

  48. Whatshisname says:

    The SPLC/KlanWatch published a recent article (‘Patriot’ Paranoia: A Look at the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories) which may help explain a good deal, especially Number One – Chemtrails.

    Otherwise, it only takes a little perusing on the internet to realize that some deniers who hide behind keyboards are calling the kettle black when they toss out accusations of fascism. People who smell of smoke from cross and book burnings are threatening the firemen. That hasn’t gone unnoticed at the SPLC and Klanwatch either.

  49. Nick says:

    Colorado Bob,are we sure that the 5000mm in 5 day figure is not a typo? That would be a five day global record,and in an area where where such a record would be many orders of magnitude beyond expected. All-time 24 hour and multi-day records are more the province of tropical/sub-tropical high mountain island and sub-coastal sites.

  50. John Mason says:

    Watts has an interesting challenge to us lot:

    “Given the events of this week, do the proponents of AGW really want to have OSBL, a man who kills people for having a differing view than him, as an ally for their cause? Do they really want an ally with a world voice that confuses weather with climate?”

    That’s as good an own goal as 10:10 have managed, I reckon. One-all (strictly in terms of the past 4 days)!

    I won’t bother with a link but you’ll find it easy enough.

    Cheers – John

  51. Wit's End says:

    Whatsisname – A number of people who believe in chemtrails have contacted me and none of them are tea-party types. They are all environmentalists. The reason they have developed this elaborate conspiracy theory – that the government or somebody is spraying toxic chemicals – is that they, unlike most oblivious people, have realized that vegetation is dying…and they have no other explanation for it.

    I’ve tried to tell them that it doesn’t require a vast secret cabal to understand what is happening when we are all, everybody, openly spewing toxins into the atmosphere every time we use electricity or drive a car – particularly when scientific research has demonstrated over decades that ozone from fuel emissions is toxic to plants, especially chronic exposure to even the low, but ever increasing, background levels of tropospheric ozone. Of course as with climate change, there has been much effort and money spent to deny this and confuse the issue, quite successfully I might add.

    The only conspiracy is the one we are all complicit in, to agree that we as a society are willing to accept a certain number of human deaths from cancer and other respiratory diseases, and a certain amount of degradation to the landscape, as well as a decrease in annual crop yields, in order to continue to enjoy our polluting lifestyles.

    The problem with this is that trees are dying at a rapidly accelerating rate. Without them, the entire terrestrial ecosystem will collapse from a cascade of ramifications to all the species dependent upon trees for habitat and food, from microbes in the soil to birds to fish in streams sheltered by their shade – a situation exactly comparable to the bleaching of coral reefs from increasing acidity and warming, which is causing the collapse of the ecosystem in the oceans.

  52. Raul M. says:

    Wit’s End
    Thank you for saying so much in so few words.
    Gov. Conspirarcy may equal largest emmiters
    on the most basic level. Confusion may equal
    how to change.

  53. Whatshisname says:

    Wit’s End – I hear you. I, on the other hand, deal with the very heavily-armed true believers (survivalists) who, as the SPLC article suggested, believe Chemtrails are an attempt by the New World Order to thin out the population. One of the points of the SPLC’s Chemtrail section was the dangers posed by these people projecting their deepest fears and placing blame on those trying to save them. There was a time when I could help sort out these and similar matters face to face — two humans with many other things in common like sports or sense of humor. But in recent years they’ve hardened their positions to the extent where we can no longer talk. Actually they won’t associate with me at all. Most of my close relatives including immediate family members have shunned me as an enemy for 10 or 15 years or more. Suffice to say that I am no longer invited to family reunions.

    Unfortunately I have told you more than intended and should return to my nearly 40-year battle at ground level while the rest of you take care of the science.

    Good luck to us all.

  54. Chris Winter says:

    Lou Grinzo (#45):

    I too captured “Looney Nunes”‘s text. Typical right-wing talking points, plus the Nazi angle. Did you notice the link at upper right, labeled “My birthday gift to Westlands”? It “helpfully” invokes Google Translate to repost his message in whatever language you select. Obviously, Nunes intends that to be German.

  55. Keith Kloor says:

    Well, I’ve avoided commenting directly on this site since our last dust-up, but since you’re kind enough to provide a link under my name, let me at least give your readers direct access to my actual post calling out Watts:

    [JR: It takes a lot of chutzpah to come here and make that request.

    Readers know I have avoided commenting on you for 11 months now — in spite of your incessant false and unjustified attacks on me since then. Indeed, I’ve only mentioned your name a couple of times in passing in the context of your Curry posts during that time (as a search for your name on this site will quickly reveal).

    You however have never stopped ‘commenting’ on this site. Any reader can go to your site and put my last name in your search engine and they will find the most absurd attacks posts possible, even on my most innocuous of posts, most noticeably with this one.

    I linked to your comment on WUWT. Asking for a link to your site — i.e. “direct access” — shows, again, much chutzpah, to put it mildly.

    UPDATE: I said in the original post that you are part of the WUWT “tribe,” but to be very clear, I was using Curry’s definition of that term, which you have popularized on your website. That would not be a revelation to anyone in the science blogosphere. BUT since I personally don’t like the tribe-based characterization Curry and you have been trumpeting, I decided to revise this post.]

  56. Scrooge says:

    IMO the contributors over at WUWT need a lesson in communism, democracy, and fascism. Pure capitalism ends up being a fascist govmt except in the USA the companies like Koch own the govt rather than the govt own the companies. This is where the tea party/John birch want to take us. Business owners simply want a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. On the other side we look at large labor unions when they were run by the mob. The leaders wanted to run the govt just to get a bigger piece of the pie. In a democracy the vast majority of the people who are the workers simply want to make a bigger pie to benefit everyone. Democracy works best when the pendulum is near the bottom. Swing it to far to the left or to far to the right it ends up in the same position.a position where not to many of us want to be. I mostly say this for the people that comment at WUWT because the dumbing of America fits in with right wing/tea bag agenda.

  57. JeandeBegles says:

    I am not a PR specialist, but as a concerned citizen, I fully support the No Pressure video. Of course I can understand why good people could feel disgusted by some pictures, but, it is an artistic achievement that may be understood from different ways.
    The video doesn’t target the climate sceptics, the real target is the public apathy of the vast majority of us, worried by the climate threat, but unable to put it on first priority.
    The video is shocking? Dont you think global warming will shock us stronger and stronger?
    To put a parallel between this video and the deniers lies is a CLEAR MISTAKE. We can disagree with the effectiveness of the video, but the purpose of No pressure is brave and sincere. To wake up from our apathy.

    [JR: I actually think that the video is both offensive and ill-conceived. I don’t think there is a parallel between this video and the deniers — I think there is just an interesting hypocrisy by the deniers, which, of course, is nothing new.]

  58. Chris Winter says:

    The blog entry that’s the basis of Steve Bloom’s post (#26) is here:

  59. Thon Brocket says:

    Colorado Bob; Richard Brenne:

    The “5000 mm” claim is, I believe, just the Guardian being its ususal innumerate and unreliable self. “500 mm” would seem closer.

  60. Scrooge says:

    I forgot to say one thing. Since the anti science crowd at WUWT use the wingnut philosophy of can’t attack the message so shoot the messenger in the case of OBL its OK to shoot the messenger.

  61. Keith Kloor says:

    Joe, I wasn’t asking for a link. I just thought it was disingenuous that you linked to the comment–and not the actual post. obviously, that’s because you don’t like that I said in my post: that you and Watts are two sides of the same coin when it comes to demagoguery and guilt-by-association tactics.

    All you did was make my case with your tribal reference in your update above.

    [JR: Nice try. You asked for “direct access to my actual post” and then posted the URL itself, which is “asking for a link.”

    Anyway, I didn’t link to your post because you spend an amazing fraction of your posts attacking me and other climate science bloggers and the like. That identifies your tribe — but only according to the Curry school of tribalism, of which you are a leading herald.

    Now you are saying the use of a “tribal reference” is “guilt-by-association tactics”? Hmm. I can’t wait for you to make that charge against Curry, since she essentially created and popularized this distinction. Heck, I guess that means you are labeling yourself a leading enabler of “guilt-by-association tactics” since you keep repeating her stuff.

    UPDATE: As noted in the comment above, I don’t want to leave folks with the impression that I like the “tribal” metaphor, even if Curry and Kloor promote it, so I removed it.]

  62. Rob Honeycutt says:

    At current count I find no less than 50 copies of this video now posted on Youtube.

  63. Mr. Kloor @63 says, “obviously, that’s because you don’t like that I said in my post”.

    Note to Mr. Kloor — basic standards of logic and critical thinking include the rather elementary (and one would otherwise imagine, obvious) rule that you do not have the privilege of legislating what other people think, or why they think it.

  64. Rob Honeycutt says:

    If anyone wants to come over to Youtube and lend a hand I’d be much appreciative. I’ve been there posting hundreds of times to try to quell the craziness and promote a bit of thinking about the actual science behind climate change. It feels a little like I’m a one man army over there.

    One point that I keep making is that, if the tables were turned and they were blowing up greens, most of these people would be laughing their butts off and telling us to chill out ‘cuz it’s not real blood. Hypocrisy abounds with these folks.

  65. David says:

    Meanwhile back on planet earth, September set another record high global temperature per the RSS analysis despite the onset of La Nina conditions. Last month checked in at +0.525C, besting the old record of +0.494C set in 1998. This is also the third consecutive monthly record.

  66. Wit's End says:

    I’ve got an idea! I haven’t been able to bring myself to take on hypocritical deniers using the 1010 video to compare “ecofascists” with Osama bin Laden, however, I suggest as a tactic for anyone who wants to, insist they compare that fantastical production with the true morbidity of this one:

  67. Colorado Bob says:

    As the Senate debate expired this summer, a longtime environmental lobbyist told me that he believed the “real tragedy” surrounding the issue was that Obama understood it profoundly. “I believe Barack Obama understands that fifty years from now no one’s going to know about health care,” the lobbyist said. “Economic historians will know that we had a recession at this time. Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.”

    Read more

  68. John Mason says:

    I’ve offered to contribute to WUWT threads that require some geology this evening, for my sins. I feel that engaging with ordinary folk who end up on certain blogs CAN be useful. Antidote to anti-science? I don’t know. It came as a response to a reply on an old thread that suggested that sea-floor spreading had slowed down, if not ceased, 30 million years ago. I feel I need to get in there and make an effort. Science deserves representation everywhere, even if it meets with hostility.

    Cheers – John

  69. M wrote in comment 13:

    I found it a disgusting and inappropriate video.

    M wrote in comment 13:

    Having said that — I wonder if it is a difference between British TV culture and US culture? I remember being similarly disgusted by the exploding fat man scene in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life when I watched it as a kid, and really, the Black Knight scene that everyone loves to quote (“just a scratch!”) has a guy standing there with blood pumping out of a missing limb, but for some reason that’s funny…


    The video looks almost like some sort of a cross between two different Monty Python skits:

    How not to be seen

    … and:

    Salad Days

    Notice in particular what happens to the individual who has been doing the voice over in “No Pressure” and “How not to be seen.” And “No Pressure” was written by the very same comic playwrighter that did Blackadder. Regardless, it wasn’t written in the context of a comedy but in the context of a political statement on a highly charged topic and most certainly crossed the line of good taste.

    One might argue that “No Pressure” was meant to make fun of the portrait of environmentalists that denialists love to paint. Or that they were trying to get attention, or trying to be funny — while making some serious points.

    But they played right into the propaganda efforts of denialists in the United States. They really “shoulda known betta.” Then again, people in Europe are only beginning to get acquainted with denialist propaganda techniques. Climategate was the first good taste of it for many.

  70. Jeff says:

    I agree with John Mason #70. It is easy to loose vision if we only have a narrow focus.

  71. Anonymous says:

    IMHO this is not really a subject worth talking about at great length. Some are greatly offended at the video, but more than anything it is a piece of ill-advised highly exaggerated over-the-top satire. The makers should have realized that it was a bad concept early on, and it’s too bad that they released such a poorly-conceived video, but the video is fiction.

  72. Steve Brown says:

    I’ve spent the past week hiking in the Scottish Highlands with no access to Internet or TV, so have only just caught on to this brouhaha. I am nonplussed at the shrieking skirt-wringing hysteria that this video seems to have generated – much of which seems to be driven by people who admit to not actually watching it.

    It may not be a particularly good environmental campaign video, but if it was a sketch on a comedy show it would be just an amusing piece of black comedy. The makers of the video are sending a very nuanced message, which may have been too clever for its own good.

  73. Lorien says:

    WitsEnd, your idea is absolutely brilliant, I’m doing it as soon as i finish this comment.

    Also, to add to Timothy Chase’s comment wrt: the No Pressure vid and Monty Python, SCTV also used to have a recurring sketch called “Farm Film Celebrity Blowup” where John Candy and Don Flaherty played good ole (Canadian) farmers who watched celebs “blow up real good”. (Of course there was no tomato paste involved like there was in this vid or Monty Pythons’ blowups). That said, No Pressure, to me is, at worst, a lame attempt at humor, maybe even self-deprecating humor. That it turned into a rallying cry for denialists just shows me their desperation.

    On my way over now to post “Black Tears” the video WitsEnd suggested on the BP oil spill. THAT video is tragic beyond belief.

  74. Steve Bloom says:

    Good point, Lorien. They got nothin’, and are becoming more and more prone to hysteria.

  75. Bryson Brown says:

    I have to say this is pretty much pure distraction. It’s more of the same game Republicans played when they made John Kerry’s service in Vietnam an issue, in order to protect George Bush from his (much more dubious) war record. And it’s enabling the press, as they continue to pretend that there is a perfect symmetry between extremism on the right and the left, while ignoring how quick the left is to criticize their own even as the right aggressively defends absolute madness and paranoia. Consider the bipartisan attack on Acorn, contrasted with wide acceptance of professional distorters and slimers like Breitbart and (of course) crazed science deniers like Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton.

  76. catman306 says:

    Rob Hunnicutt wrote:

    “And THAT said, the 1010 people need to get on the freaking stick and get every copy of their copyrighted material taken down from Youtube. No exceptions. No sleep until they find every copy. To hell with anyone claiming censorship. The video belongs to them. You can’t censor yourself.”

    That’s exactly right. The producers or 1010 own the copyright. It’s a trivial matter to pull it from the internet as a copyright violation. Get it off!

  77. David B. Benson says:


  78. Chris Winter says:

    Maybe not so simple, catman306, considering how many people have a copy of it on their local hard disk and can keep uploading it. But yes, 1010 should make some effort to get those copies removed from YouTube.

  79. joe says:

    #78 “It’s a trivial matter to pull it from the internet…”
    and that, my friends, is as true as most everything else written here….

  80. adelady says:

    Yes, Wit’s End. The other one I like is this personal Gulf spill video with the Glee version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow as soundtrack.

  81. Rob Honeycutt says:

    catman306… Thank you. I still think they should be pulling every copy of this as fast as they can. If it were a corporation in the same situation they’d have someone on this a long time ago. It’s copyrighted material. It belongs to 1010. They have the right to pull it.

    That said, I think getting over there on Youtube and knocking heads with the nutjobs is a good thing. You’ll never convince them of anything. That’s fine. But if you look, some of those videos are getting 70,000+ views. Not all of those people are deniers. I would contend that the “silent majority” of them are people looking to make up their minds on this issue. They’re curious and they want to know more. If we just abandon that arena to the crazies we lose the potential to influence a lot of people.

    I spend a lot (way too much) time on youtube with exactly this in mind. If I can stay calm, collected and present the science of climate change then I give a good face to this issue. I’ve had many many people write and tell me that I have influenced them positively with my comments there. That’s what we need. We need to win hearts and minds. We need people to be willing to slow down and try to look at the science. To trust the science.

    Today, youtube is an extremely important media outlet. We can really make significant gains there. I’m honestly pissed off because I feel like the 1010 folks negated the good work that I’ve done there over the course of two years in one 24 hour period. And they STILL are not taking this matter seriously!!

  82. catman306 says:

    Rob Honeycutt and all, here’s some inspiring background music, a YouTube song list.

    Earth Fail Warnings

  83. Deborah Stark says:

    I finally had a chance to view the 10:10 video.

    Frankly, I am stunned. In my opinion this is a very ill-advised piece presented at the worst possible time. -sigh-

  84. another joe says:

    I thought it was a pretty good piece of satire, although it was particularly insensitive. It was British comedy – as others have pointed out, exploding people is not out of line in British or Canadian sketch comedy.

    The best way to get people to notice a video is to get it banned, so maybe the producers really are too smart for their own good…

  85. Steve Bloom says:

    Re #84: “But if you look, some of those videos are getting 70,000+ views.” Hmm, is that possibly a sign of going viral with the kids?

  86. John Mason says:

    This is an excellent analysis of what went so wrong with “No Pressure”:

    Cheers – John

  87. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Okay people. This same video on just one reposting is now hitting 150,000 views. I’ve seen this again and again. If you’ve got this many copies floating around and they’re hitting this many views it’s only going to start to snowball. The 1010 people better start taking this seriously.

  88. JasonW says:

    Sigh. It makes me wish that they had taken just a LITTLE more time thinking about it. If video had depicted the deniers blowing up the rest of the actors despite their best efforts to curb carbon emissions, it would have been just as edgy, just as PSA-like – but a lot more accurate. It would have got the message across precisely. The shouting of the rabid anti-science types would have been just as loud, but it may have kickstarted thought processes by those sitting on the fence – in the right direction.

    The best that could be said of the video is that is has revealed, openly, the true face of the hardcore denier mindset (Watts, Nova, Bolt, Delingpole etc), with their paranoid, authoritarian fantasies. ‘Eco-fascists’ indeed. I am the only one that finds their writings chilling, time and time again?

  89. mike roddy says:

    Rob Honeycutt:

    Thanks for your work on Youtube. You should approach 10-10-10 and other environmental organizations to support and expand your work. There is already a pretty big library, including Peter Sinclair’s work, but more focused effort is needed. You can bet that the Right is working this venue hard.

    Jason W, it was interesting to see the hysteria from the Right. They were actually frightened by the video, even though they are the ones with all of the guns. But then, this is the same crowd that believes in contrails, the Bildeburgs, and FEMA concentration camps. They’ll go for anything.

  90. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Thanks Mike. I’ve thought of that before. It would be great to have 30 or 40 people around the world doing exactly what I’m doing on a daily basis. I believe it could have a seriously positive impact. But my self cloning lab at this point is just not well funded. ;-)

  91. Chris Winter says:

    It occurs to me that, most likely, the people who keep posting copies of the 1010 video on YouTube will be those who want to discredit 1010. It’s worth pointing that out in comments.

  92. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Chris… One of the things I keep repeating on Youtube is that the makers of the video pulled it very shortly after it was released and issued an apology (albeit one that still is lacking IMHO) for their lapse in judgement. But the people who are actively promoting the video are the people who have an agenda to paint the environmental movement as something that it’s not.

  93. GeeWillikers says:

    I’m not sure which is sadder: US humor deficiencies or the way liberals jump like marionettes on a string when the ranting right goes off on one of their rants.

    The funniest thing about the “No Pressure” video is the way it highlights the eco-nuts’ inability to stand pressure!

  94. Rob Honeycutt says:

    GeeWilli… That’s the whole point though, right? The right wing doesn’t care. Produce this same video with “greenies” getting blown up and you’ll have Rush Limbaugh rolling on the floor laughing his head off.

    At least on the left we have the decency to see right from wrong. To me, this video fails the very basic litmus test of, what if the tables were turned? How would I feel?

  95. MarkB says:

    The purpose of the British video was to show how anti-science zealots view environmentalists or attempt to portray environmenalists as terrorists or fascists. Watts is not surprisingly proving their point.

  96. Richard Brenne says:

    Rob Honeycutt (#97) – I would buy any reasonably-priced ticket to see Rush Limbaugh rolling on the floor laughing his head off.

    Notice in the admittedly rather lame joke above I do not recommend anyone hurt Limbaugh, but am willing to witness his own self-destruction (not really, I’m sure that’s a ticket I couldn’t afford)?

    I’ve been a working, produced, award-winning screenwriter and know some things about this process.

    I haven’t seen Blackadder but have seen Richard Curtis’ films and this does seem similar to his work, which is often clever and amusing but rarely “The Graduate-Tootsie-Chaplin-Keaton-Lloyd-Woody Allen to 1979” brilliant or funny.

    His characters are not carefully delineated but are instead jokey – any joke can come from any character’s mouth because they’re all his jokes, well, many of them, anyway.

    Judged just by the quality of the comedy, the first blow-up is a surprise, but the second two are not building the comedy, but merely repeating it.

    But as the only screenwriter in human history (that I know of) who never had violence or revenge or a bomb or gun as the solution to any problem (and was thus a F+ list screenwriter, or at best D- by Hollywood’s yardstick, though higher by others), this film bothered me on many levels.

    Firstly, I think exposing any child to violence in filmmaking is a form of child-abuse, however small relative to some others (no matter how much I like a commercial I mention below).

    Then repeating the same joke three times isn’t great comedic filmmaking. Any joke has a natural length, usually far shorter than something like this is milked. That’s why “The Simpsons” had Crusty the Clown hosting Saturday Night Live and after the joke is played out 10 seconds into a skit he groans “Uggh, now we’ve got five more minutes of this. . .”

    But the most important part of any film project is the clarity of thinking and purpose that go into the film (or commercial) right from the beginning. You can have the best director and actors in the world, but if you don’t have a good premise and script from the beginning, you can’t have a great product. “No Pressure” has a good director and actors who we should want to keep working in climate change filmmaking, but the concept and script needs to be better, and as I said from the beginning (comment #4 on the first “No Pressure” posting), run the concept and script by Bill McKibben, Joe Romm and others before you begin any pre-production, let alone production.

    I think in this case having the Koch brothers, Inhofe, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and others of their ilk in some setting like the initial classroom uttering their direct quotes while water rises to engulf them and everyone else – or anything like that – is a better starting point.

    If I were being paid to do this I know I could come up with a better premise, and I know a lot of people I’d like to work with, including top producers, directors, actors, etc.

    John Mason (#89) has an excellent link to a thoughtful essay by Matt Wootton, with links to four additional violent pro-environment commercials at the bottom of the essay. They are each very powerful, and the one with American girls playing soccer in what turns out to be a minefield is even more troubling than this one, and it was produced by the UN.

    It makes the point that if landmines were here in our own country, we’d do infinitely more to prevent them. I’d like to point out that the same message needs to be made about bombing and waging wars. Our last home game war was the Civil War, and since then we’ve made sure every real war has been an away game. Comparing 9/11 or other isolated instances to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates the inability to appreciate dramatic differences in scale, like all told about a 20,000 (total killed in those other wars) to 1 (killed on 9/11) ratio.

    Of course the U.S. wasn’t solely or in the first two primarily responsible for the total deaths, but the fact is that we need to empathize with those suffering from wars we create or help to create.

    That’s an important tangent. As to the “No Pressure” video, hopefully it teaches us to organize umbrella and other institutions to communicate our messages as clearly and powerfully as possible.

    But here’s the central message: We need to band together to do this. Some of us have talents and others of us have access to money or fundraising talents and we need to get together on this.

    Rob Honeycutt (#93) should have his self-cloning lab better funded. (I had a self-cloning lab, but picked up after it on walks.) We should band together to better communicate in all mediums, with those like Peter Sinclair, Wit’s End, Mike Roddy, Richard Pauli and others who are already doing tremendous work receiving funding as it comes in, however small it begins.

    Let’s grow together.

  97. ewerb says:

    it’s sorta like a penguin on the telly, or a scottsman…the 10:10 campaign video is unintentionally revealing; on one hand, it seethes with unsubtle anger at (the lack of) others’ “efforts”, and yet unselfconsciously frames a blithely clueless arrogance around our culture’s incessant “pushing the red button” on innocents everywhere to maintain our habits. how ironical, someone call alanis…

  98. Marc Roberts says:

    I’ve sprayed some gore of my own in this cartoon on the subject

  99. Ken Peterson says:

    John Cleese & the Monterey Bay Aquarium prove that you can be genuinely funny and still make an important point about climate change,